Point 1) Forest are closer to villa when they came up, they had a lot of either loanee or contract expiry players so whilst their recruitment looks excessive its different to Fulham, in the sense it was needed and they are mostly identifying players who fit what they did do well but are upgrades. Fulham seemed to make a wholesale style shift.
Point 2) people can talk about difficulties or signings being tough, but that isn't the case. The finances are tough but the identification of targets shouldnt be. In addition to having a scouting and recruitment team, a DOF or a designee will have the role of identifying short, mid and long term targets. A pro club has masses of data tracking and scouting affiliates too you can subcontract in a jam. We seem particularly poor and slow with completing transfers and it's right to at least point out we think this.
Point 3 - Leeds had 5 players unable to make the squad at the weekend due to injury or fitness, they managed to field a bench that had 4 subs they were happy to bring on during a Prem game they ultimately won.
Everton lost 2 CBs during the opening week and already signed a replacement who they had been keeping tabs on previously.
Injuries are a factor in squad planning and management, not an excuse for a lack of options unless it's a flu or food poison style situation that there have been like 2 or 3 examples of in about 25 years.
I agree completely @big mean bunny but I’d say 7 of these would have been in the squad. It may even be more given they have missed Moutinho off our list.
