What is the difference between Al Fayed and Khan

[Mince n Tatties]

Delia...Now there's one goes home and away, and she sings..
"Lets Be HavinYou".. :drums:

[Berserker]

The chairman have two of his men on the board though, not sure if Khan has

[ron]

The moment was favourable for MAF. We had bottomed out, and the green shoots of recovery were well and truly growing under Mickey's guardianship. The recovery gathered pace, and confidence began to feed off itself. Very good players were prepared to drop divisions to be part of the adventure.

Now the converse is true.  What is needed is a charismatic leader (as before) to regenerate the feel good factor not only for fans, but prospective additions to the playing staff. And that is something we have not got.

[YankeeJim]

Khan is in his second year and he is supposed to have all the accomplishments of MAF over his lengthy run? Compare what Khan has done in two years vs MAF's last two years. Compare financial rules from 15+ years ago with today. Give the man a break.

[nose]

MAF had an emotional requirement to succeed, He was desparate to do well... he only eased up when the supporters decided they did not want to leave craven cottage, i recall him saying the fulhham fans loved the ground at craven cottage more than success on the field and from that moment his investment backed off.....    we are limited to what can be donme by the size of the ground and the ability to raise income from match day... that is why liverpool, and spurs are so keen to get bigger stadiums...

khan, i have no idea what his objectives are... i suspect he has a far too american outlook on sports and see the club as a franchise rather than a living entity.....  he also never shows up which is so bad for us. i know some people disagree with me on this point but if you are the leader it is a very good idea to be visible and present.

Mr Nose the Chairman of Bournemouth never turns up either he is more elusive that Khan, I can see how that has done them a lot of harm.

good luck to them..... it's going well... i know nothing about how they run their affairs

it isn't going well at fulham, he  (khan) should be here to take charge and show some leadership.... any first year business management student would know that much.  he doesn't have to be here every day of every week but he should show his face and show it more often on match day too.

[ToodlesMcToot]

One's Egyptian and one's Pakistani.

[Woolly Mammoth]

MAF had an emotional requirement to succeed, He was desparate to do well... he only eased up when the supporters decided they did not want to leave craven cottage, i recall him saying the fulhham fans loved the ground at craven cottage more than success on the field and from that moment his investment backed off.....    we are limited to what can be donme by the size of the ground and the ability to raise income from match day... that is why liverpool, and spurs are so keen to get bigger stadiums...

khan, i have no idea what his objectives are... i suspect he has a far too american outlook on sports and see the club as a franchise rather than a living entity.....  he also never shows up which is so bad for us. i know some people disagree with me on this point but if you are the leader it is a very good idea to be visible and present.

Mr Nose the Chairman of Bournemouth never turns up either he is more elusive that Khan, I can see how that has done them a lot of harm.

good luck to them..... it's going well... i know nothing about how they run their affairs

it isn't going well at fulham, he  (khan) should be here to take charge and show some leadership.... any first year business management student would know that much.  he doesn't have to be here every day of every week but he should show his face and show it more often on match day too.

I agree Nose, and at least he should show his moustache, which rumour has it, is located under his nose.

[alfie]

MAF had an emotional requirement to succeed, He was desparate to do well... he only eased up when the supporters decided they did not want to leave craven cottage, i recall him saying the fulhham fans loved the ground at craven cottage more than success on the field and from that moment his investment backed off.....    we are limited to what can be donme by the size of the ground and the ability to raise income from match day... that is why liverpool, and spurs are so keen to get bigger stadiums...

khan, i have no idea what his objectives are... i suspect he has a far too american outlook on sports and see the club as a franchise rather than a living entity.....  he also never shows up which is so bad for us. i know some people disagree with me on this point but if you are the leader it is a very good idea to be visible and present.

Mr Nose the Chairman of Bournemouth never turns up either he is more elusive that Khan, I can see how that has done them a lot of harm.

good luck to them..... it's going well... i know nothing about how they run their affairs

it isn't going well at fulham, he  (khan) should be here to take charge and show some leadership.... any first year business management student would know that much.  he doesn't have to be here every day of every week but he should show his face and show it more often on match day too.

Ok i give up with this now you win, i worked for a shipping company in the city for 20 years, the owner never ever set foot in this country and they made a fortune, still if you believe him being here with improve the playing on the pitch then fair play to you.

[grandad]

You seem to have omitted that MAF did not have FFP to limit his spending?

:plus one:

Khan could outspend MAF many times over if he was allowed to.

[nose]

MAF had an emotional requirement to succeed, He was desparate to do well... he only eased up when the supporters decided they did not want to leave craven cottage, i recall him saying the fulhham fans loved the ground at craven cottage more than success on the field and from that moment his investment backed off.....    we are limited to what can be donme by the size of the ground and the ability to raise income from match day... that is why liverpool, and spurs are so keen to get bigger stadiums...

khan, i have no idea what his objectives are... i suspect he has a far too american outlook on sports and see the club as a franchise rather than a living entity.....  he also never shows up which is so bad for us. i know some people disagree with me on this point but if you are the leader it is a very good idea to be visible and present.

Mr Nose the Chairman of Bournemouth never turns up either he is more elusive that Khan, I can see how that has done them a lot of harm.

good luck to them..... it's going well... i know nothing about how they run their affairs

it isn't going well at fulham, he  (khan) should be here to take charge and show some leadership.... any first year business management student would know that much.  he doesn't have to be here every day of every week but he should show his face and show it more often on match day too.

Ok i give up with this now you win, i worked for a shipping company in the city for 20 years, the owner never ever set foot in this country and they made a fortune, still if you believe him being here with improve the playing on the pitch then fair play to you.

sorry... it is in my nature to go on a bit.... what else do I have to do till next season

[Nick Bateman]

FFP is a poor excuse for not spending.  Khan needs better advise than he has received so far.  The biggest difference between them, I believe, is Al Fayed would have sacked Ali Mack one day after the Mitrouglou debacle, and ergo, stayed with René Muelensteen who would have succeeded in keeping us up!

[God The Mechanic]

FFP is a poor excuse for not spending.  Khan needs better advise than he has received so far.  The biggest difference between them, I believe, is Al Fayed would have sacked Ali Mack one day after the Mitrouglou debacle, and ergo, stayed with René Muelensteen who would have succeeded in keeping us up!

It wasn't a debacle the day after he signed, it was a deal where we had signed a Champions League quality striker so we were all pretty damn happy...

[Logicalman]

There seem to be more red herrings here than ever before.

To compare Fulham in 1997 when MaF purchased it for some 6.25 Mil and in the third level-league, with Fulham of 2013 when Khan purchased it for somewhere nearer 200 Mill and in the top level-league, is to say the least, a stretch.

There are so many differences between both the cost of players, the leagues themselves, the available sponsorship and TV Rights monies, and the Financial Rules that any type of one-to-one comparison is, at best, providing a poor result.

MaF did for us what no other chairman has done before (except perhaps TT who oversaw our previous longest stint in the top tier), and was very much an in-your-face chairman, attending matches, promoting Fulham at every opportunity. But lets not be fooled into believing he was only in it for the club and fans. He courted the publicity, and even turned on the faithful in regards to his MJ statue when he told those that (rightfully imho) criticized it to both 'Go To Hell' or 'Go To Chelsea' (perhaps the same place really), the latter of which is still a massive insult to Fulham fans.
In the latter years of his ownership we saw a lack of overt investment together with poor decision-making (Jol is one of those - should have been fired before MaF left), before he finally sold the club to Khan, which was his to sell, so nobody can complain. Remember, he did write off somewhere in the region of 170 Mill owed debt in that time as well, making us a more attractive proposition to potential buyers.

As for Khan, he has inherited a poorly-run club in the throes of a death dive from the Prem (and if you believe it ONLY started in season 2103/14 I believe you might be mistaken), though with his business acumen he should have known this, and has made poor decisions in his first 2 seasons in charge. He is not a publicity mogul who courts the news media (perhaps except in Jacksonville!!), and his business interests elsewhere likely impacts his ability to attend week-in and week-out in the same fashion that MaF did (I believe MaF business interest were predominantly UK based if I recall correctly)

Perhaps after Khan has been allowed just a third of the time MaF was in the hot seat we should be better placed to criticise and/or praise, but for now, the Red Herring rules the roost with such comparisons.

[Nick Bateman]

FFP is a poor excuse for not spending.  Khan needs better advise than he has received so far.  The biggest difference between them, I believe, is Al Fayed would have sacked Ali Mack one day after the Mitrouglou debacle, and ergo, stayed with René Muelensteen who would have succeeded in keeping us up!

It wasn't a debacle the day after he signed, it was a deal where we had signed a Champions League quality striker so we were all pretty damn happy...

I did not claim the debacle was signing Mitroglou, as I carefully worded it.  The debacle was that he had paid £11million on a unfit to play footballer!!  Macintosh also allowed Berbatov leave cheaply to Monaco, again something Al Fayed would never have allowed.

One could go on but there are so many things our previous chairman would have done differently and ultimately BETTER.

[MJG]

Remember, he did write off somewhere in the region of 170 Mill owed debt in that time as well, making us a more attractive proposition to potential buyers.

But just to clarify he converted that debt to shares/Equity which he then sold to Khan. So he got that money back, otherwise who would buy a club £170M in debt?
He also had £20M payed back to him over the last 4 years as part of the deal to pay back £10M per year on request.

[God The Mechanic]

FFP is a poor excuse for not spending.  Khan needs better advise than he has received so far.  The biggest difference between them, I believe, is Al Fayed would have sacked Ali Mack one day after the Mitrouglou debacle, and ergo, stayed with René Muelensteen who would have succeeded in keeping us up!

It wasn't a debacle the day after he signed, it was a deal where we had signed a Champions League quality striker so we were all pretty damn happy...

I did not claim the debacle was signing Mitroglou, as I carefully worded it.  The debacle was that he had paid £11million on a unfit to play footballer!!  Macintosh also allowed Berbatov leave cheaply to Monaco, again something Al Fayed would never have allowed.

One could go on but there are so many things our previous chairman would have done differently and ultimately BETTER.

Didn't MAF pay a similar amount for an at the time unfit Ruiz?  Mitroglou's issue wasn't just the injury he had when he joined, he got injured shortly thereafter.

Things may have gone differently had MAF stayed on, however there are way too many similarities between the last couple of MAF's reign and Khan's first few to see how the last two years would have gone any differently had MAF not sold.  Also, Khan has had our first big money success story - MAF never managed to spend big and well in his time at the club.

[Logicalman]

There seem to be more red herrings here than ever before.

but for now, the Red Herring rules the roost with such comparisons.

Are you by any chance a Salt Water Fisherman by any chance.

Nope, but my son wins fishing comps if that helps!!  :54:

[Logicalman]

Remember, he did write off somewhere in the region of 170 Mill owed debt in that time as well, making us a more attractive proposition to potential buyers.

But just to clarify he converted that debt to shares/Equity which he then sold to Khan. So he got that money back, otherwise who would buy a club £170M in debt?
He also had £20M payed back to him over the last 4 years as part of the deal to pay back £10M per year on request.

Quite right. Sorry, I should have made that more emphasized, inasmuch that the difference in monies paid by MaF and the cost of sale can be somewhat equated to the debt he wrote off, or the sale would have been in the low tens of millions (if that) to Khan. And that would have been plain embarrassing.

[Nick Bateman]

Wrong!

Al Fayed would never have allowed Fulham to get in such a mess that only a stay-away, know-nothing-about-soccer (sic) rookie Chairman would do.

In fact it was that Ali Mack, a pen-pushing heathen "yes man" was suddenly allowed to run RIOT!  

The appointment of Khan allowed Macintosh to let Jol GIVE our best goalkeeper to our sworn enemies _Chelsea, after Schwarzer had just had his greatest ever season at the club!!
He sold Berbatov well under half-price while Fulham were in a crisis situation in the January window (when most do not do meaningful business in).  How did he know Mitroglou would hit the ground running in the Premier League??

Of course he didn't but he still went full steam ahead with the at least risky if not ridiculously idiotic experiment with Fulham in danger of the drop.  Mitroglou turned out to be INJURED and aggravated that injury being forced to play by a tuetonic version of Muhammad Ali ("I am the greatest" Magath virtually proclaimed).

This continued into this season with Fulham rock bottom while everyone and his dog knew Magath had to go.  Weak leadership from Khan under the woeful guidance of Ali Mack waited far too long (as Leroy Rosenior said on TV), a further difference between the two bosses.

Fulham are currently a rudderless ship with Macintosh steering us towards the rocks while the captain sleeps in his bunker aft.

[YankeeJim]

There seem to be more red herrings here than ever before.

To compare Fulham in 1997 when MaF purchased it for some 6.25 Mil and in the third level-league, with Fulham of 2013 when Khan purchased it for somewhere nearer 200 Mill and in the top level-league, is to say the least, a stretch.

There are so many differences between both the cost of players, the leagues themselves, the available sponsorship and TV Rights monies, and the Financial Rules that any type of one-to-one comparison is, at best, providing a poor result.

MaF did for us what no other chairman has done before (except perhaps TT who oversaw our previous longest stint in the top tier), and was very much an in-your-face chairman, attending matches, promoting Fulham at every opportunity. But lets not be fooled into believing he was only in it for the club and fans. He courted the publicity, and even turned on the faithful in regards to his MJ statue when he told those that (rightfully imho) criticized it to both 'Go To Hell' or 'Go To Chelsea' (perhaps the same place really), the latter of which is still a massive insult to Fulham fans.
In the latter years of his ownership we saw a lack of overt investment together with poor decision-making (Jol is one of those - should have been fired before MaF left), before he finally sold the club to Khan, which was his to sell, so nobody can complain. Remember, he did write off somewhere in the region of 170 Mill owed debt in that time as well, making us a more attractive proposition to potential buyers.

As for Khan, he has inherited a poorly-run club in the throes of a death dive from the Prem (and if you believe it ONLY started in season 2103/14 I believe you might be mistaken), though with his business acumen he should have known this, and has made poor decisions in his first 2 seasons in charge. He is not a publicity mogul who courts the news media (perhaps except in Jacksonville!!), and his business interests elsewhere likely impacts his ability to attend week-in and week-out in the same fashion that MaF did (I believe MaF business interest were predominantly UK based if I recall correctly)

Perhaps after Khan has been allowed just a third of the time MaF was in the hot seat we should be better placed to criticise and/or praise, but for now, the Red Herring rules the roost with such comparisons.

There you go, being logical again. You needed engage here. Nick is just being Nick, a wind up and its a slow day so Wooley's trying out that hat as well. They'll be banging on Ruiz in a bit or perhaps we could just get Dempsey back & get this lot to all go after the same man. Just like the old days.  :dead horse: