Why ‘Doing A Fulham’ Is A Lazy Accusation To Sling At Newly-Promoted Premier League Clubs

Whenever a club gets promoted into the Premier League and spends money to improve their squad, fans of other teams invariably claim the promoted side are “doing a Fulham.”

The term refers to when Fulham spent over $100 million on 12 players in 2018.

Nottingham Forest are the latest side to be accused of “doing a Fulham” after signing twelve new players for close to $100 million. They follow the likes of Aston Villa, who were given the label on their return to the Premier League.

Many claim that by spending so much on new players, clubs “doing a Fulham” create disharmony in the dressing room and a lack of cohesion on the pitch.

But while there is some evidence that keeping the same players together can help improve a club’s performances, newly promoted clubs rarely have this option.

Forest and Villa both build their promotion teams around loan players, and other key players were toward the end of their careers, so without new signings they would have had no team to play in the Premier League at all.

They effectively had to sign a new team, and decided to sign new players that they believed were of Premier League quality (which cost quite a bit) rather than buy Championship-level players.

Newly-promoted clubs who don’t spend any money might avoid being labeled a “Fulham”, but instead often get branded as “doing a Norwich”, after Norwich City, who have been accused of not spending enough money to be competitive in the Premier League.

The term “doing a Fulham” stems from the London side’s 2018/19 season, when they brought in some twelve players before getting relegated. It suggests they brought in superstars on huge fees and that disrupted their dressing room.

Many people using the phrase might actually be thinking more of Fulham’s west London rivals Queens Park Rangers, who around six years earlier brought in Brazilian internationals and players from Real Madrid, rather than Fulham whose signings mainly came from Ligue 1 or Championship-level clubs.

Apart from World Cup winner Andre Schurrle, signed on loan from Borussia Dortmund, Fulham’s signings were hardly superstars.

In fact, despite the “doing a Fulham” label, their transfer window wasn’t that much different from other Premier League clubs, and another newly-promoted club that season had a very similar transfer window and qualified for Europe.

First of all, Fulham didn’t actually bring in an entirely new side in the summer of 2018. Despite all their signings, the core of the squad remained the same. Out of their eight outfield players who played 30 games or more in 2018/19, six were already at the club the season before.

Out of Fulham’s twelve signings, five were loans (and one was Aleksandar Mitrovic), replacing the six players they had on loan the season before. Those signings were needed just for Fulham to be where they were the season before, which would still be somewhat short of Premier League standard.

80% of Fulham’s spending went on just four players, one of whom, Mitrovic, was already at the club on loan the previous season. Mitrovic scored 11 goals in 2018/19, just one fewer than Brentford’s Ivan Toney last season, and he would likely have scored more had Scott Parker not been in charge for the latter part of the season. His 43 goals last season prove that far from a flop, he is one of the best players of Fulham’s recent history.

Two of the others big-money signings, Alfie Mawson and Andre Zambo Anguissa, spent much of 2018/19 injured. Mawson was on the verge of the England team at the time Fulham signed him from relegated Swansea, and in the games he did play before his knee injury, Fulham’s results against teams outside the “Big Six” weren’t that bad. Zambo Anguissa, who is now at Champions League side Napoli, barely played for Fulham before February.

Their biggest signing of that summer, Jean Michael Seri from Ligue 1 side Nice, was a massive disappointment. Big things were expected from Seri, who was linked with the likes of Barcelona and Arsenal before his move to Craven Cottage. But while Seri might be a $30 million flop, he is just one player. The likes of Arsenal and others seem to sign a $30 million flop every season, but unlike Arsenal, Fulham don’t have a squad of $30 million players to cover his weaknesses.

Fulham weren’t the only newly-promoted side to bring in a dozen new players that summer. Wolverhampton Wanderers spent a similar amount of money bringing in twelve players, including signings from the likes of Monaco, Porto and Atletico Madrid. They finished seventh – hardly “doing a Fulham.”

The main difference is that Wolves had a much stronger squad to begin with – the team that won them promotion contained Diogo Jota, Ruben Neves, Conor Coady and Matt Doherty.

That summer, Brighton and Hove Albion also brought in 13 players and West Ham United signed ten, while the following year, newly-promoted Sheffield United signed ten players and Aston Villa signed twelve.

The average spending by those teams was around $90 million each, not far short of Fulham’s $110 million. The only real difference is that Fulham paid way more than Seri is worth.

This season, Fulham are back in the Premier League. They won the Championship at a canter, so should have started the summer with a better squad than in their two previous promotions, both of which came through the play-offs. Their stronger, more-balanced squad last season is reflected by their fewer signings this summer, although worryingly for Fulham fans, despite effectively having since February to get ready for their Premier League return, manager Marco Silva claims their squad is still not ready.

Fulham have only signed four players, so they certainly can’t be accused of “doing a Fulham”, although if they do get relegated, I’m sure some fans will claim they are “doing a Norwich.”