Craven Cottage Newsround

To see the real page click here.

There we are. Lots of rumouring. Aaron Hughes is excited, Steve Davis is set for Fulham talks, and Diomansy Kamara has either slapped a transfer request in or WBA have slapped a £4.5million price tag on him or we’ve slapped a £4.5million bid in for him. Either way, everyone’s slapping these days. David Healy’s wife is not holding up his move (that’ll be Ken Bates’ deviousness, as well we know) and Chris Brunt has been temporarily retained by Sheffield Wednesday. Brunt is a winger, like Lee Cook, so pieces of Plan Sanchez are becoming clear. Unremarked in the above is the ongoing saga of Chris Baird, another Northern Ireland player. Rumours that we’re going to sign Pat Jennings to back up Antti are so far unsubstantiated by fact.

Nice of Sky to bring relegation odds to our attention before we’ve even started too.  Miserable b@stards.

My neck is better, but then I’ve had lots of valium today. I think the two are linked. Medicine rules.

This isn’t a new signing, it’s my neck.   This morning I woke up with one ear all but attached to my shoulder.   Sensing something was wrong I went to the doctor’s, but because I am not registered (I tend not to go to doctors) they were incapable of helping me.  “Never mind your agony, sir, you haven’t filled out your forms!”  So we went to St George’s Hospital Walk-In and the nice nurse diagnosed my Torticollis.   By now Hady had had to go to work so I walked home while staring at the floor and trying not to scream or cry in public.     Tonight I must return to see their GP and he is going to give me valium.   I’ve never had valium before.  It sounds exciting.

Football-wise we’re led to believe that Aston Villa’s former player of the year is Fulham bound.  This is Stephen Davis, who also plays for Northern Ireland and is, like Hughes before him, considered to be a decent player available at a sensible price.  Yay.

We have also been linked with some French players but best wait until something more concrete comes in before discussing them, I think.

That’s all from me.  Despite the pain killers I am in agony.  I keep trying to tell Hade that this isn’t just some cricked neck, there are spasms involved, but my constant whingeing, no matter how justified, is likely to wear thin before long.   I must try to stop.  But it hurts, dammit.

Aaron Hughes has signed for Fulham. Word is that we paid around a million pounds for him, which is probably a decent value. Hughes was Sanchez’s captain for Northern Ireland so the manager clearly rates him as a player and as a person. If Hughes is the steady, unflappable rock some are saying he is that’ll do us nicely. He doesn’t have to be Franco Baresi to make a difference to this defence.

Barra Boy, one of TFI’s main moles, says that we’re near to agreeing something for Diomansy Kamara of West Brom. Not sure about this, he always seemed a bit shifty to me, but the fellow can play and has a heady combination of pace and skill. His presence would lend unpredictability to this most predictable of teams.

Similarly, we’re in for Blackburn’s Jason Roberts. Roberts is a livewire and would be an ideal counter-attack forward away from home. Perhaps one of the reasons Fulham have struggled so much on the road is the complete lack of pace in the side. It’s a cliche of sorts, but away from home you expect to have to absorb pressure, and maybe strike on the break. Well Fulham just can’t do this. There’s no way that last year’s Fulham team could get from one end of the field to the other in numbers without the opposition accompanying them.  It just didn’t happen. Speed would make it more likely that we can force mistakes, catch people out of position, and score some bloody goals.  Which in turn would put less pressure on the defence.

I like what Lawrie Sanchez is trying to do, I think. There seems to be a method to his madness, and whether it works or not (and given the amount of money everyone else is spending I think we can get a lot better and still go down), he deserves credit for the way he’s approaching his task. Easy to say now, of course, but the vibes are pretty good.

I’m back.  Knackered but back.   Bath was quite nice, although my streak of nights in a hotel without sleeping has now increased to two.  I don’t know what’s wrong with me.

Meanwhile, back at Fulham, Mido is now off the menu.   Word is that he and Fulham were unable to agree on what he should be paid.  Fine, move along.    Everyone has a price, Mido’s is higher than what Sanchez thinks he’s worth, so that’s that.

There’s nothing else.  The Korean chap at Reading whose name escapes me has been linked with us, but I can’t see the point in this particularly.

There’s a bit on the offal about how we should be aiming for the top ten.  Volzy’s behind it I think.   I mentioned this on TFI, but I got really fed up with this top ten target, which I think is silly.   The goal should be to win every match, and if, by winning games, you go up the league, that’s great.  All we heard last year was “top ten”, “top ten” and on and on and on.  Coleman really seemed to believe that we were on the edge of being in this wonderful kingdom.   Which we were, had we managed to win any games.

A number of Fulham players have said that they learned last year how important it is to appreciate the value of every football match, and not to think “well there’s always next week”.  Isn’t this the same problem?   If your goal is a vague one (”top ten”) you always know that there’s another chance to reach it next week.  I’m not suggesting that the team didn’t try to win every game - of course they did - but I question this blasted “top ten” mantra.   Shoot Magazine always used to do interviews with players where they asked soft questions:  who’s the joker?  Have you any superstitions?   Do you set yourself targets?  I remember to the latter someone suggested that he didn’t set targets.  What, he wondered, would he do when he reached it?  Stop scoring?  And so it is with Fulham.  Just win matches and see where it gets you.

Apologies for that minor rant, but it annoyed me last year.

You’ll note that I’ve archived b+w geezer’s Fulham Finances series below.  This was with his co-operation, and done to ensure that the work he’s done can be easily accessed by anyone so inclined.  Good stuff.

As for me, nothing much to report.  I have a dozen human interest stories I could tell, but this is a Fulham site.   More rumours in the papers but at this point we’re all thinking “okay, but let’s wait until it’s a done deal”.   So Diomansy Kamara may be imminent, Mido may well be going to Portsmouth, but nobody really knows.

What is definitely happening is the Gold Cup final, featuring the dynamic Fulham duo of Bocanegra and Dempsey.   I’ll be out tomorrow (in Bath on ‘business’) so no post then, but if you watched the Gold Cup final please leave your thoughts in the comments.

The fifth in a series of articles on Fulham’s Finances by b+w geezer:

In previous installments of this summer series I’ve discussed various figures for the years 2004-5 and 2005-6:

Income from football…….. £37.1m; £37.1m.
Total staff costs:………… .£33.9; £30.1m.
Net spend on transfers…….. £2.3m; £9.6m.

If that were the full picture, the club would be roughly breaking even. Unfortunately it isn’t, as there are many other expenses apart from staff and transfers.

Most of those are totalled under a heading called `Other external charges.’ Details aren’t given, but they’ll include the consumables, utility costs, travel costs, and costs of services required to operate for 12 months, on and off the pitch. And materials too – sales of replica shirts come under income, to take just one example, but the club had to pay for the shirts in the first place.

I think, but here I remind you I am not an accountant, that `other external charges’ include also the interest payable on loans. Net interest payments for 2005-6 totalled £3.2m, as they did the year before. More about that next time.

Altogether, `Other external charges’ came to £11.7m during 2005-6. Going back in time, the figure was: 10.0m, 9.2m, 9.9m. The equivalent Charlton figures were 11.0m preceded by 8.3m, while Birmingham City’s were 7.1m preceded by 6.3m. Neither of those clubs had significant interest payments to make.

So here is how it pans out for the past two seasons at Fulham in £ millions.

Income from football minus (staff costs + transfer costs net of receipts + other external charges).

2004-05…..37.1 minus (33.9 + 2.3 + 10.0) = minus 9.1m.

2005-06…..37.1 minus (30.1 + 9.6 + 11.7) = minus 14.3m.

Total for the two seasons = minus 23.4 million.

There was the compensation of the interest payments from Fulham to Harrods, certainly. But otherwise we are mainly talking money leaving MAF’s pocket and then being consumed.

Small print: All goods and service transactions with Harrods and other Fayed businesses — for things like food for the restaurants — are summarised in Auditors’ Note 23 of the 2005-6 Accounts. They total less than half a million pounds.

The fourth in a series of articles on Fulham’s Finances by b+w geezer:

In combination, `Matchday’ and `Commercial’ cover gate receipts, executive boxes, sponsorships, merchandising, advertising, etc. However, clubs may differ slightly in what they apportion to each category.

The Broadcasting aspect is determined by an equal payment to all clubs, plus finishing position (with each placing worth nearly £0.5m) plus the number of matches shown live. For 2005-6, the top club had 24 live games shown and the lowest nine. Blackburn ranked 11th in those stakes with 11 shown.

The following shows the most recent figures for Fulham, Charlton, Blackburn and Bolton. Amounts are in millions of pounds, while average league crowd figures are in thousands.

		FULH CHAR BLAC BOLT 

Broadcasting 	23.2 22.4 25.7 26.6 

Matchday 	 7.5 12.6  7.1  9.8 

Commercial 	 6.4  6.9 10.7 10.1 

Total 		37.1 41.9 43.4 46.5 

Crowds 		20.6 26.2 21.0 25.4 

Position 	12th 13th  6th  8th

Now here is the picture for Fulham over time as reflected in the last four sets of annual accounts. The relationship between crowd size and matchday income may surprise. I would be interested in theories and comments arising.

		05/06 04/05 03/04 02/03 

Broadcasting 	 23.2  23.5  27.2  21.9 

Matchday 	  7.5   8.2   7.6   7.2 

Commercial 	  6.4   5.4   5.0   5.0 

Total 		 37.1  37.1  39.8  34.0 

Crowds 		 20.6  19.8  16.3  16.7 

Position 	 12th  13th   9th  14th

This is the fourth in a summer series of articles, approximately weekly, about Fulham’s finances in context. In due course they will become archived online.

The third in a series of articles on Fulham’s Finances by b+w geezer:

First some total staff costs for the financial year of prem season 2005-6, to the nearest million pounds:

Chelsea 114,

ManU 85,

Arsenal 83,

Liverpool 69

Newcastle 52,

Charlton 34,

Blackburn 33,

Fulham 30,

Bolton 29,

Birmingham 27,

Wigan 21

In every case, 11-12% of this relates to social security plus any pension contributions and payments to directors. At Fulham the breakdown was:

Wages and salaries: 26.8m,

social security: 3.2m

0.12m towards pensions.

All figures are for the staff as a whole with no information about who got what. Staff totals are, however, given. At Fulham there were 61 paid players, including the Ladies Squad, and 119 non-playing staff, making a total of 180, which was 21 down from the year before.

Full-time staffing at three similar clubs to Fulham was:
Charlton: 229,

Blackburn 223,

Bolton 191.

Fulham also used 435 casual and part-time staff, mainly on match-days. Charlton used 533.

A track of Fulham’s total staff costs over time goes like this in £m

2001-2: 30.8
2002-3: 36.4
2003-4: 30.9
2004-5: 33.9
2005-6: 30.1

By comparison, Bolton’s 2001-2 figure was sub-19m, while Charlton’s was 21.5m and Blackburn’s 29.7m.

Small print: Bolton’s staff numbers exclude the on-site hotel, which is included in the parent company, Burnden Leisure. Burnden also paid the directors’ `emoluments’ of 0.69m, but I’ve included these in the Bolton FC total to make a proper comparison with everyone else. Emoluments for Fulham directors came to 0.55m (0.24m for the highest paid; 0.31m for the rest). For Blackburn: 0.29m and Charlton 0.13m.

All the detailed figures are taken from the relevant accounts recently lodged at Companies House. See especially Auditor’s Note 8 in the Bolton accounts and Note 4 in those of Fulham, Charlton and Blackburn. Figures for the five bigger spending clubs are as reported by Deloitte.

This was the third in a summer series (approximately weekly) about Fulham’s Finances in context. They will become archived online in due course.

The second in a series of articles on Fulham’s Finances by b+w geezer:

Chris Coleman spent £11.9 million on transfers net of receipts during his second and third full seasons in charge – slightly more than Curbishley at Charlton.

During the same period, Blackburn and Bolton broke even on transfers – made very slight profits even.

All this is evident from the latest Annual Accounts for each club. These show the position for the year to 30 June 2006, with the equivalent figures from the previous year stated for comparison.

Fulham paid £10.45 million and received £0.85m from July 05 to June 06. So transfers cost £9.6 million overall. Those figures exclude signing-on fees, which are instead included in wages. But they do include transfer fee levies, agents’ fees and any other associated costs.

It does all add up without jiggery-pokery, but if you want to go through it for yourself, then see How £9.6 million is arrived at below.

In the previous set of accounts, Fulham’s net spend on transfers had been only £2.3 million. (6.6m paid, 4.3m received). If we therefore add 2.3m to 9.6m and divide by two we arrive at around £6 million as an average annual net spend in transfers for 2004-6.

By comparison, over the same two seasons, Charlton had an average net spend of £4.4m on player transfers, while Bolton had £0.3m average profit on transfers and Blackburn £0.4m profit. See `The small print’ below this post]

As will be explained in future articles, our £11.9 million overspend was money that could not be found out of operational income — all of which had already gone on other things unfortunately. Which meant….

(To be continued. This was the second in a series about the latest financial facts of Fulham in the context of rivals).

HOW £9.6 MILLION IS ARRIVED AT

The audited accounts for the year to 30 June 2006 state that the full cost of transfers came to £10.45 million while £0.85 million was received, hence a net cost of £9.6m.

The 0.85m bit is immediately plausible since the only players attracting fees during the period were Elvis Hammond and Darren Pratley. (Others were bought and sold in July/August 06)

But what of expenditure? Elrich and Droby arrived prior to the accounting period. As for the rest….

The two fees made public were Helguson, 1.1m and Bullard 2.5m. (Jimmy was registered on 16 May 06). As for the fees for Nic Jensen, Warner, Niemi and Brown, one has to estimate, but it’s hard to see how there would have been change out of 5.0m, raising the total to 8.6m.

The 5% transfer fee levy then raises the cost to £9m.

That would leave £1.45m or about 17% of the base transfer fees for the agents’ cuts. The previous season, in the Football League, agents took a fifty percent cut on transfers according to Deloitte. No-one’s suggesting the Prem would stand for that, but 10-20% (as estimated here) is plausible. Bullard’s agent above all would have expected a goodly reward for steering such a desirable property to us, at a bargain price, before any other club had a chance to muscle in. And while Elliott and Christenval arrived without any transfer payment as such, it wouldn’t surprise if the latter anyway had an agent.

The auditors have documents to go by for each transfer, but even if they didn’t you couldn’t make the gross amount much less than £10.45m without being unrealistic. [Well could you?] And remember that this doesn’t include signing-on fees to the player.

All this was just for a single year (the most recent for which figures are published) and it was a greater loss than previously. The average net spend on transfers for each of the two financial years 2004-6 was `only’ approximately £6 million. Charlton’s was £4.4m over that same period, while Blackburn and Bolton each made small transfer profits. (In case you were wondering, the former had similar and the latter had lower staff costs – more about that next time.)

THE SMALL PRINT

Information has been sourced from the latest annual accounts, to 30 June (or in Bolton’s case 2 July) 2006, as were recently lodged with Companies House. These can be downloaded by anyone for £1 each from http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/046b70ddecf833a93761334d9da24f43/wcframe?name=acc

The figures for annual profit or loss on player transfers can be found as follows:-

Fulham Football Leisure Ltd – Auditors’ Note 19 (page 26 on screen or 24 in print)

Blackburn Rovers Football and Athletic PLC – Auditors’ note 6 (page 21 on screen or 19 in print)

Bolton Wanderers Football & Athletic Company Limited – First item under `Operating Profit/(Loss)’, page 9 on screen or 7 in print.

Charlton Athletic plc – Auditors’ Note 22. (Page 31 on screen or 29 in print).

Bolton and Blackburn varied little between the two seasons.

Charlton’s two seasons differed considerably, but in the reverse order to Fulham’s. During 2004-5 they spent a net £9.1m on player transfers, but in 2005-6 they made a £0.4m profit. Hence £4.4m loss averaged over the two years.

First in a series of articles on Fulham’s Finances by b+w geezer:

Over the summer, I intend to regale you with bits and pieces from the latest accounts of Fulham Football Leisure Limited. Not too much at a time, but bite-size chunks.

For a very gentle starter, here is part of the Directors’ report.

“The Groups’s main commercial risk is that associated with potential failure to retain membership of the FA Premier League…..In the event of relegation from the FAPL, the Group’s revenues would fall in the next two years to a level which would not finance ongoing contractual commitments, and the Group would therefore have to place more reliance on funds provided by the parent company [a.k.a. the Chairman] and take action to significantly reduce operating costs. Such action could prevent the maintenance of a playing squad capable of gaining promotion back to the FAPL. Therefore the Group’s main aim is to prevent this risk becoming a reality.” [my italics]

So the directors are keen for us not to be relegated and are aware this a key issue. Doubtless it was necessary to read this messageboard before the penny dropped — but it has. Whether they realise the extent of the expenditure required can not be ascertained.

Next week some time, considerably more to get your teeth into, with the headline financials in context. That’ll probably take a couple of episodes. Then on to the more tricksy bits, where the genuine financial professionals (which I’m not; but some on here are) will be solicited for their help.

You have been warned!

Liam on Stuart Pearce:

“He is a good manager,” added Rosenior.

“He has been great with the players and it has been great for me as a full-back to have him as a manager and we showed some of his spirit and passion in the match yesterday.

“He will be great for some of the younger players coming through and great for the players going into the full squad. The team spirit was amazing and it is something we can go home with and put into our careers.

“It is sad to be going home but it would have been worse had we not done ourselves justice.”

I wonder what Liam learned from Ol’ Pyscho?   Two more different fullbacks you couldn’t possibly see, although Queudrue isn’t that different to Pearce as a player.  A little less dirty, a little less able going forward, but similar enough.   But if Pearce is worth anything as a coach he should’ve been able to impart some wisdom to keen as mustard Liam.

Today people seem to think we have signed Diomansy Kamara.   Damned if I know.   It’s not in any news stories.    With this and the Mido thing we seem to be gearing up for something.  But who knows what?   A Heidar and John 1-2 “punch” seems unlikely for the first game this year though.

The US won again but no word from our Stateside readers about Dempsey or Boca.  Anything to declare, lads?

Here’s an insight into the world of Captain Carlos.   Thanks to BQ for that one.

We’ve had another bid for Lee Cook turned down.  The QPR winger is tricky, pacey, English and pricey, but by all accounts would be a fair player in our side.  Sanchez seems bent on getting a big man up front and some genuine width in the side, which is a good thing I think.   That’s sort of how football’s meant to be played, no?

The big man seems more and more likely to be Mido.  Or Pandiani.  I’m warming to the former and still aghast at the latter, although both views are largely based on nothing much.  As with everything, we’ll just have to see.   Supporters can barely agree on the value of players they watch every week, so how we’re supposed to judge people we don’t know a thing about is anyone’s guess.

Hello, Joel.  Joel made a comment in the last post, questioning “medicaling”.  I think that’s an acceptable use of the language, even if it is made up.  “Having a medical” is how I should have written it, although even that would confuse a foreigner.  Having a medical what?  they might ask.   Indeed.

Anyway, Joel used to be my boss.   I think Joel invented broadband internet (him and Vas Blackwood).  Years ago he told me about this crazy way of leaving your computer online all the time and frankly it confused me, but look, here we all are, broadbanding away.   He also lived in Tooting before it was cool.  What?  Oh.  Anyway.

The other thing that Joel did that made an impression on me was to instruct me that his philosophy of line management was to get the best out of folks with a view to getting them promoted.  He explained that this made them happy, made him look good, and helped the company because its staff were doing well.   It remains one of the most sensible things anyone’s ever said to me, and I used this little maxim in my next job (in the Irish subsidiary of the same company) as an example of what ought to be happening.  What was happening was the opposite: belittle staff to the point of breakdown and watch as clients, sales figures and eventually staff all do the opposite of what you want them to.  Clever!

Anyway, like the first world war, that’s behind us now.

The season is getting closer isn’t it?   The club shop’s open now, and soon we’ll be able to buy Arsenal away tickets.  Another trip to the Emirates beckons.   Not long.

Today we see the Daily Mail revive interest in the “David Healy to Fulham” story. It’s not like the trail had gone dead or anything but talk had quietened. The Mail, which makes no mention of property prices or immigrants in the article, says that we’ll sign him when the Leeds situation is sorted.

Aaron Hughes was rumoured to be medicaling at Motspur Park today.

Chris James of New Zealand and Fulham Reserves is said to have rejected a two year contract offer. What this says to me is that a) Sanchez at least realises that he has a youth team, but that b) Chris James is aware that at other clubs he’d have been given a chance by now.

It’s a point I’ve made before, but it’s worth stating again: if we’re so short of money we have to be a lot cleverer with it. That means using players like James instead of players like Radzinski.

The problem with youth team players is that they can come into the side and not impress us and we all go “oh well, he’s not good enough” and write that player off. But if Tomasz Radzinski or Brian McBride has a bad game we just shrug it off. Youth and reserve players are on trial every match.

But it shouldn’t work like that. Working smart means developing your own talent, which is much cheaper than buying it in once it’s already developed. Chris James has 30 odd international caps, was New Zealand’s player of the year or something last season, and is talented. He’s not the quickest but he can use a football. But he hasn’t sniffed the first team. It’s an unacceptable situation for a team like Fulham to be in. He might lack something but he could do a serviceable job in the first team for less than what others would cost. And who knows, he might blossom into something more than we expected. Fulham never develop young players because they never give young players a chance. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Meanwhile, Liam Rosenior played in the mad, mad England U21 defeat tonight. The young England side lost 13-12 on penalties to Holland. You read that right: 13-12. Liam took about the 8th penalty, and I don’t mind admitting that I expected him to miss. But credit to the lad, he held his nerve and blasted it home. Good lad. Liam’s not the finished article, not by a long way, but he’s a good kid and he cares deeply. Nice to see him getting some good experience out there.

There it is.   I have stuff I’m meant to post, good stuff, but I haven’t the time to get it up properly and do it justice.   I could wonder about Mido, I could try to find an Aaron Hughes highlights package on the internet, I could wonder aloud why you’re not allowed to get off buses between stops anymore, but really, what would be the point?   I’m working very hard at the moment and am absolutely knackered, partly from the hours, and partly from the sugar megastorm I’m subjecting myself to in keeping refuelled.  Snickers are wonderful things, but they do not form the basis of any credible good diets.  Now I must sleep.  Don’t give up on me though, readers, as news happens I’ll cover it.   But there is no news and I can’t cover that.   It is the sleepy time of the year.

Chopper, of the newly re-branded Hammy End Chronicle, is doing a better job than I of writing things.  Have a wander over.

Our boys (as in Clint and Boca, not the rest of ‘em) line up in line.  Ready for action.

What the f*ck are those on your feet, Mr Dempsey?

Anyway, as you can tell, the US have been in action again, providing the Fulham members of that squad with some meaningful recreation.   BQ tells us about it:

As you can see from the first photo, Dempsey and Bocanegra both started with Bocanegra wearing the captains armband again for the U.S.

The U.S. had many opportunities in the first half and no one could claim that we didn’t make the “final pass”. But on this day we lacked finishing as it seemed the team was pressing almost too hard. Taylor Twellman had at least four opportunities in the first half and never made the best of any of them.  Twellman hit the cross bar once and the upright another time in the first half.

Dempsey looked good again and it was Dempsey who placed a cheeky little pass to Landon Donovan who beat his man and was into the box when tackled from behind allowing the U.S. a penalty which Donovan than took and scored. Dempsey created problems for the opposition all game by his runs and he seems to be getting his decisions right as to when to shoot and when to pass. From the ratings I saw from sports writers he ranked highly.

From U.S. soccer:

“It took only two minutes for the USA to double the lead, this time off the head of team captain Carlos Bocanegra. With the U.S. earning a free kick just outside the area on the right side, Beasley whipped a perfectly curled cross into the six-yard box. Bocanegra slipped his mark and hammered a header past a helpless Penedo, getting his third career goal in the tournament and seventh in 47 international appearance.”

So another goal for Boc’s as it was the type we often have seen him score for Fulham. He had an attempt in the first half from a corner from the left side where he went near post and took the short corner on his head flicking it with power to the far right post only missing it’s mark by a small margin.

Again, from U.S. Soccer:

“The U.S. could easily have made it 3-0 in the 82nd minute after Dempsey found himself alone 10 yards out thanks to a delivery from Donovan, but the striker took too long to choose an option and saw the ball poked away by Perez.”

Yes, it’s true. I have no idea what Dempsey was doing but he received the ball right in front of the goal (in the box) and instead of first timing it did a Cruyff type moving cutting it behind his back only to have a second defender come up from behind and clear it. Let’s hope this is something he will learn from. It was an easy first touch and Lord knows what he was thinking.

Overall a good result for the boys in red, white and blue. Their next game is in Chicago on Thursday, 6:00 pm. CST carried on Fox Soccer Channel here in the States.

There we are.

Back in Blighty, it seems there are Egyptian rumblings afoot.   This has to be something to do with MAF, in which case we should indulge him, but the word is we’re about to sign Mido.   You can see a pattern here:  Mido, Harewood, very similar type players.  When I was guessing we’d be after Heskey earlier in the offseason I perhaps wasn’t being as daft as I thought.   I’d much prefer Harewood, but if Mido can be arsed to play he’s not a bad big man.    Word from Spurs was that he generally couldn’t be arsed to play, which is a bad thing.   He doesn’t seem like Lawrie Sanchez’s type at all, which makes me wonder if this isn’t some kind of smoke signal themed misdirective plot.    Possibly.  At any rate, I could easily have made some reference to storm clouds rumbling in the distance here if I’d wanted to.   I don’t like this Mido idea one bit.

We still only have half an Aaron Hughes on board so far, but it’s early days yet.  Who knows what’ll happen next?