OK so I should know better. The media is always going to have a view of Fulham that doesn't match my own but an article in today's Times has really peed me off. In "The Game" there's an article examining every Premiership clubs transfer dealings and giving a mark as to how well the Times think each clubs done. Fulham get a C+. So OK we might have signed a lot of players but most of them have been playing in the championship. Anyway It doesn't really matter does it - it's just a bit of fun ...
Aston Villa get a B - Total incoming transfers 1, the massively over-rated Nigel-Reo Coker for an equally massive £8million. Apparently Martin O'Neil has £40million to spend but "will only buy big if the right players are available". So how does that make them a B - for heaven's sake!
Derby get a B+ - They've signed Earnshaw (£3.5million), Claude Davis (£3million from relegated Sheff. Utd) and Andy Todd from Blackburn. Is that better than us? I don't think so.
Man City get a B+ - They've only just announced their new manager, they've only signed two players. They claim they are about to sign Peter Crouch but they haven't yet have they!!
Wigan get a B - This is the one that really annoys me. A B!?!? What for? Their big signings are Koumas and Bramble. Titus Bramble - the unofficial "worst defender in the Premiership". They might buy Marlon Harewood, but Mr Times Journo, they might sell Leighton Baines!! Grrrrrrr!
Right, rant over. I got a bit cross there and it really shouldn't have annoyed me so much, but it is typical of the media's general opinion about Fulham and other supposedly smaller clubs. I always try and rationalise these things by saying that it's OK if the media underestimate you, it's what you do on the pitch that really matters. It doesn't stop me getting annoyed by it though especially when their opinions are based on personal preferences rather than actual facts.