Ali Mac

[bill taylors apprentice]

So are we creating the narrative that those who work in the scouting/recruiting department just take the months off until January or something? Even then, is there no transcript in which someone in the trust asks the actual question: "Don't you lot find targets before the January transfer window opens"? Surely not, probably because it is a stupid thing to ask, let alone assume.   

Surely we can't be that defiant to our club that we assume this is how it operates. Let's just give the benefit of the doubt that there is much, much, more to the story than we're assuming.

I think AM did a good job in explaining why we didn't get who we wanted, either because the club wanted to perform the deal, but the player did not, or vice versa.

Benefit of the doubt???

Your'e having a laugh!!!

[RaySmith]

I find it hard to accept the current predominant mantra, that those involved in the running of FFC, including signing new players, aren't doing their very  best to ensure the club does well, and stays in the Prem, even though mistakes may have been made.

I accept the explanation that it was hard to close deals on potential signings in the past window- in which few players moved anywhere, despite the strong efforts made.

Apart from anything else, it's surely very much  in the interests of everyone involved in running the club, including TK and AM, that Fulham prosper and do well.

[Southcoastffc]

I find it hard to accept the current predominant mantra, that those involved in the running of FFC, including signing new players, aren't doing their very  best to ensure the club does well, and stays in the Prem, even though mistakes may have been made.

I accept the explanation that it was hard to close deals on potential signings in the past window- in which few players moved anywhere, despite the strong efforts made.

Apart from anything else, it's surely very much  in the interests of everyone involved in running the club, including TK and AM, that Fulham prosper and do well.

I wouldn't argue with what you say here but when SK bought the club in 2013, allegedly for £150 -£200m, I was amazed that he didn't protect that investment better at that time. 

[snarks]

I wouldn't argue with what you say here but when SK bought the club in 2013, allegedly for £150 -£200m, I was amazed that he didn't protect that investment better at that time. 
[/quote]


I'm sure he tried, I think going for 3 managers in a season is an indication of that, let alone signing mitroglou, it's a pity he picked Felix, but his reputation made it a worthwhile gamble (just completely wrong)

[cottage expat]

I particularly like this quote:

"AM reiterated that Tony Khan is... very knowledgeable about football in great detail."

I'm sure he's "very knowledgeable about (NFL) football in great detail". He just seems to know squat about Association football.

[Milo]

I found the final points about planning for next season interesting.

AM suggested many players are on either short term deals, loans, or have relegation clauses. Also, that the club will receive parachute payments.

This sounds like AM has financially planned for relegation.

However, there is no mention that an on-field plan has been made for next season. I.e. I would've asked HJ who he felt could make the step up to the first team and how he has prepared his young players in advance of this eg lack of loans for S Sessagnon etc. Furthermore, AM made no mention of having any contingency plans for potential managers or Championship targets which personally I would've begun resolving this January.

Having a solid financial plan is important to keep the club afloat, however we also need solid on-field plans and that is where a DoF should really come in!

[Matt10]

I don't get this, I really don't. At the time we signed Fabri and Mawson, got Chambers in on loan, signed Mitro, Seri and Anguissa, Shurrle and TFM on loan, most were happy with that, and thought that we would do well - as did I. This constant re writing of history to point out that we now decry what happened is like a scene out of 1984 ("Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia").

Yes I hate this car crash of a season, but the constant revisionist sniping is overkill.

It's all very tiring I know and partly one reason why I'm not engaging in many discussions' on here at the moment.
The lines are drawn by many and the enemy as they see it are everyone who works at the club at this time in any position. Everything Slav touched was gold and anything done or attributed to others is complete rubbish.
It just hasn't worked out this season, crap happens and we are on the receiving end of it this year.
As fan you get on with it, do the best you can in supporting this club with a rational open mind to things as they are. It doesn't mean you agree with everything going on and wouldn't want better from the club, far from it, but some would be better to step back, read what they have written and see how off the scale some of it is.

That's it right there. Well said, Mike.

[bill taylors apprentice]

I find it hard to accept the current predominant mantra, that those involved in the running of FFC, including signing new players, aren't doing their very  best to ensure the club does well, and stays in the Prem, even though mistakes may have been made.

I accept the explanation that it was hard to close deals on potential signings in the past window- in which few players moved anywhere, despite the strong efforts made.

Apart from anything else, it's surely very much  in the interests of everyone involved in running the club, including TK and AM, that Fulham prosper and do well.

You say "you find it hard to accept" the views of others,  I find it very hard to accept the poor quality of our team due to those in charge of recruitment, considering the money spent.

Also, I have worked with plenty of people who do "their very best" but their very best just wasn't good enough and were found wanting.

For the record again, I think we have good owners I just wish they would sort out the recruitment.

I think you are far too accepting of poor results from those in charge.

[RaySmith]

I said that I find it hard to accept that they aren't doing their best.

I also think that those of us outside the process don't know the difficulties there might be in getting he right players to come to Fulham.

[ALG01]

I don't get this, I really don't. At the time we signed Fabri and Mawson, got Chambers in on loan, signed Mitro, Seri and Anguissa, Shurrle and TFM on loan, most were happy with that, and thought that we would do well - as did I. This constant re writing of history to point out that we now decry what happened is like a scene out of 1984 ("Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia").

Yes I hate this car crash of a season, but the constant revisionist sniping is overkill.

It's all very tiring I know and partly one reason why I'm not engaging in many discussions' on here at the moment.
The lines are drawn by many and the enemy as they see it are everyone who works at the club at this time in any position. Everything Slav touched was gold and anything done or attributed to others is complete rubbish.
It just hasn't worked out this season, crap happens and we are on the receiving end of it this year.
As fan you get on with it, do the best you can in supporting this club with a rational open mind to things as they are. It doesn't mean you agree with everything going on and wouldn't want better from the club, far from it, but some would be better to step back, read what they have written and see how off the scale some of it is.

If I may.
I think you will find we were all concerned the squad was lacking in many areas and that too many players arrived late. However we were all astonished at the vast quantity of money that came in a rush.

But how many of the players did anyone really know? Unfortunately lots of dosh for very little quality and no full backs or fit central defenders. I think we are entitled to be disillusioned.

The lack of meaningful action in January has made things very much more disapointing.

[snarks]

Chambers was a fit central defender. MLM was a fit central defender/LB Bryan was a LB that had performed very well in the Championship. Yes the late arrival was an issue, but no one was panicking over it, concerned maybe, but that was all. It was the same with AFZA's arrival people were talking about his performance in the Europa league final.

Hindsight is fantastic but we are all guilty of looking at the transfer window like that now.

[Fulham1959]

Is there a report of the meeting on here ? - I can't find one.

Anyone ?

[Woolly Mammoth]

I said that I find it hard to accept that they aren't doing their best.

I also think that those of us outside the process don't know the difficulties there might be in getting he right players to come to Fulham.

If they are doing their best, then it's nowhere near good enough and totally unacceptable.
As the proof of the pudding is in the eating. They stumble from one pantomime to another, very much like the three Stooges Larry Mo and Curly use to do in their black and white films ( note same colours as Fulham ).
But I also doubt that they do not even know what is best, as their abysmal record shows.
There are three kinds of stock, Light Brown for Chicken Stock, Dark Brown for Beef Stock, and Black & White for Laughing Stock.
But this is no laughing matter, here we are in February with no imminent sign of a recovery, waiting for a miracle to happen.
If miracles do happen then it has to start from Friday right through to the 12th May inclusive.

[snarks]

Is there a report of the meeting on here ? - I can't find one.

Anyone ?

Yes there is, as you can tell it's not under the usual heading and I can't remember where it is. Ask Hovewhite though as he referenced it in the riverside stand thread

[Statto]

Is there a report of the meeting on here ? - I can't find one.

Anyone ?

Yes there is, as you can tell it's not under the usual heading and I can't remember where it is. Ask Hovewhite though as he referenced it in the riverside stand thread

http://fulhamsupporterstrust.com/

HEADLINES

Zara Harrison book of condolence available to sign
Riverside Stand plans on track and unaffected by possible relegation
Detailed planning for Riverside season ticket holder relocation underway
Ticket sales policy for 'Final Six' home games questioned
Season ticket exchange scheme not introduced this season
Modifications to non-standing away seats proposed
Club vote for £30 away ticket cap in response to Trust request
Transfer window reviewed
Context requested for diversity survey
ATTENDEES

On Monday 11 February 2019, Alistair Mackintosh (AM, Chief Executive), David Daly (DD, Non Executive Director), Huw Jennings (HJ, Academy Director), Carmelo Mifsud (CM, Media Relations Manager), Peter Spartin (PS, Head of Commercial Development) and Nicola Walworth (NW, Supporter Relations Manager) of Fulham Football Club met with Ian Clarke, Sue Couch and Tom Greatrex of the Fulham Supporters' Trust at Motspur Park as part of the structured dialogue between both parties.

ZARA HARRISON

The Trust offered condolences on behalf of our members and Fulham fans to the family, friends and colleagues of Zara Harrison at the Club after the sad news of her passing. The Trust plan to send a wreath on behalf of supporters, and encourages supporters who wish to extend their thoughts to Zara's family to sign the book of condolence.

JOHNNY HAYNES TROPHY

The Trust thanked HJ and the Club for the handover ceremony for the Johnny Haynes Trophy for the FST Academy Player of the Year. Home-grown players are very much appreciated by fans, and the Trust has had a lot of positive feedback on the decision to sponsor the award and to recognise progress made by the future playing talent at Fulham. AM and HJ thanked the Trust for this initiative, and sponsoring the Trophy. CM confirmed there would be content on the Club website and other channels about the Trophy as its first winner is announced.

RIVERSIDE STAND – PROJECT UPDATE

The Trust asked for an update on development of the Riverside Stand, and progress towards the stated start date for demolition shortly after the end of the current season. AM responded that this is taking up most of his time, and the Club is in the tender phase for sub-contracts having previously appointed a lead contractor.  The Club is aiming to place all of the main tendered packages by the end of April through the main contractor.

The Trust asked whether a delay in the award of any of these packages would impact upon starting demolition work of the Riverside Stand. AM responded that all tenders have been invited on the basis of a start of work by the end of May. It was clarified that the pitch is used for some events for the period immediately after the end of the season, which is why work is scheduled to begin at the end of May.

The Trust also pressed on whether possible relegation would impact on commencing work on the stand.  AM replied that the division the Club is in is irrelevant to the timescales for work starting on the Riverside Stand.

The Trust then asked for further details on other developments on the stand build plan since the last meeting.   AM and PS explained that detailed planning work is being undertaken by the lead contractor which will establish the extent of any other work required; asked for an example, AM mentioned access behind the Hammersmith End may need to be widened by taking out the 'mound' at the back of the stand.

RIVERSIDE STAND – RELOCATION OF SEASON TICKET HOLDERS

In response to a series of questions in relation to the relocation of supporters from the Riverside Stand, PS reiterated that the Club valued the engagement of the Trust and working group on this, and acknowledged the desire of many season ticket holders to continue to be seated with the groups they have been part of for some time. The Trust also set out the importance of relocated Riverside season ticket holders having the opportunity to return to the new stand when it is completed. PS indicated this is being taken on board, and appreciates the move will cause disruption.

The Trust also underlined the importance of direct communications with those who will need to be relocated, and PS and CM agreed, also highlighting they have taken note of how Bristol City managed a similar exercise during the construction of the new main stand at Ashton Gate.

Asked about timescales for beginning this process and renewal of season tickets in the affected areas, PS explained that it is dependent on finalising detailed information about available capacity next season. The Trust requested the opportunity to sense check the forthcoming survey on the Riverside Stand, which PS agreed to do, to help ensure the responses were of as much assistance as possible.

The Trust reiterated that, appreciating there are limited options available to the Club for relocation of Riverside season ticket holders, many understood there would be disruption but wanted to be able to sit close to their current groups, and to be able to have first refusal on similar seats in the new stand. PS welcomed this feedback, and confirmed that Riverside season ticket holders who renew and are relocated will have first priority on seats in the new stand as had been requested by the Trust on their behalf. However, seasonal hospitality may precede depending on the type of seat/product.

TICKETING – FINAL SIX AND LIVERPOOL FIXTURE

The Trust highlighted the significant concerns over the way in which the final six home fixtures' ticketing arrangements have been handled, underlining that it is the largest volume of emails ahead of meetings we have ever had on a single subject.

The Trust explained that advertising the on-sale dates with the final cut-off and "last chance" for new membership sales gave an impression of encouraging touts and away fans to purchase with a higher priority than existing season ticket holders.  AM responded that the Club had announced priority for members at the start of the season, had to set a cut-off date for memberships, and were keen to encourage Fulham supporters who had not done so to purchase a membership – not encouraging away fans to become members.

The Trust responded that it understood the argument for members being able to purchase a home seat ahead of season ticket holders purchasing additional tickets, but that if this was about enabling that then the Club could and should have set the cut off for the Liverpool fixture at an earlier point, knowing it was most likely to sell out fastest. The Trust also pointed out that if the Club wanted to target Fulham fans who have not bought a membership, they know who those fans are, in the same way that individuals were previously targeted to be offered a half season ticket through their purchase history.

AM agreed that the Club had taken an aggressive stance on membership sales to maximise an opportunity to increase memberships. The Trust reminded the Club that season ticket holders were their most valuable supporter base, and this approach created a perception of the Club putting revenue ahead of loyal and long-standing supporters.

The Trust asked how many members the Club currently has, and how many had taken out memberships between announcing ticketing arrangements for the last six home games and the cut off deadline. PS responded that the Club did not have those figures to hand.

The Trust further explained that the Club's positions on season ticket upgrades and the Liverpool ticket sales could be viewed as contradictory, with the former said to be in place to minimise touting but the latter likely to increase the chance of memberships and tickets falling into the hands of touts.

AM stated that he would like to see the ground as full as possible of Fulham fans – the more Fulham fans the better.

TICKETING – SEASON TICKET EXCHANGE

Having raised this a number of times in previous meetings, the Trust had been disappointed to be informed that the promised season ticket exchange scheme was not going to be introduced. PS explained that it was due to start with the Spurs game, but that match had not sold quickly enough for it to be implemented, and only the Manchester United and Liverpool fixtures had sold out early enough. The Club felt it was too much resource to dedicate for two fixtures alone.

The Trust expressed its disappointment again, and pointed out that similar schemes are commonplace at many clubs. This decision, allied with the final six ticketing policy, left many season ticket holders feeling let down. The Trust asked that with the prospect of a reduced capacity, and a greater proportion of season tickets to general sale tickets next season, such a scheme is introduced for next season as part of a package to maximise the number of Fulham fans in the ground. The Club is looking at this again, along with other suggestions from the Trust on ticketing for next season.

TICKETING – AWAY TICKETS

The Trust reported back on some issues encountered at Crystal Palace with the hitherto largely successful trial of non-standing seats for away fixtures. Fulham fans purchasing non-standing seats have shown consideration and understanding since they were introduced, however at Selhurst Park while the front rows of two blocks had non-standing seats, the third block (T) did not.  This  meant that those in the non-standing seats had their view disrupted. This impacted more at Palace because away fans are alongside the pitch rather than behind a goal or in a corner.  The Trust suggested that in future all blocks are used for non-standing seats but with fewer rows if necessary.

The Trust asked why some away fixtures are sold at 4, some at 2 and some at 1 ticket per supporter with the requisite number of loyalty points. AM responded that it was based on anticipated sales, considering distance, day of fixture, number of proximate away fixtures and previous sales patterns. The Club don't want to have empty seats in away allocations which have to be paid for in full.

The Trust asked that for the Bournemouth and Watford fixtures, both currently scheduled to be played on Saturday at 3pm, given smaller allocations and relative closeness of grounds, that early information is made available. NW explained that often the delay in beginning sales for away fixtures is due to late information received from the host clubs. 

TICKETING – AWAY TICKET PRICE CAP

AM reported that at the previous week's Premier League meeting, Fulham had voted in favour of continuing the £30 cap for away tickets for the next three year period. This had been in response to representations made by the Trust in previous meetings. The Trust thanked AM and the Club for taking these views on board, and voting accordingly.

TRANSFER WINDOW

The Trust asked AM to set out the approach to the recent transfer window, how successful the Club had felt recruitment had been, and what lessons there are for future transfer windows.

AM explained that many potential and prospective transfers are discussed from the start of the window, but often are not concluded until the deadline due to availability of players to replace them. AM would prefer to do business as early as possible, but it's not always possible to control that. It was a quieter market than in previous windows, with a lower number of moves than usual – no Premier League club brought in more than three players, as Fulham did.  AM explained that the priority was to seek to strengthen the defence, and guidelines were relaxed to seek to recruit defensive reinforcement. AM also said that Ryan Babel had improved attacking options available to the Manager since he had joined part way through the window.

The Trust pointed out that during the last January window all the players coming in were uninjured and playing in the English league, so needed less time to adjust and were able to make an immediate contribution; this wasn't the case this time. AM responded that the incoming players had English league experience, and the availability of players was limited in this window. There were deals agreed with clubs where players decided against the move, and with a player where the owning club were not prepared to sell because a replacement had not been signed. This means deals can fall through late in the window and on deadline day, despite the best of intentions and serious effort being put in weeks in advance.

The Trust asked about signings only on short term contracts.  AM responded that other potential transfers were for longer periods, but were not able to be completed for various reasons. AM also explained that season long loan deals can vary, but are usually able to be terminated only with agreement from both clubs and the player involved, which can work for or against a club with a loan player, depending on performances.

The Trust asked whether the Director of Football would have additional support on his football responsibilities given the range of other sporting activity he is involved in. AM reiterated that Tony Khan is very committed to Fulham, and that he is very knowledgeable about football in great detail. It is also the case that he has a team supporting him, on scouting, on analysis of players and performance data.

The Trust requested that given the level of interest in the way in which transfers are undertaken, some content should be produced for Fulham TV and/or the website explaining the process in more detail – as other clubs have recently done, for example Wolves where John Marshall is Head of Recruitment.

The Trust asked about use of specific agents, given some of the media coverage from the sad death of Emiliano Sala. AM explained that the Club's players have a wide spread of agents and agencies, and the Club does not have a policy of using specific agents. There is a range in the services agencies offer to players; some provide assistance with practical issues – accommodation, cars etc – others only negotiate transfers on behalf of players or clubs.

HJ explained that agents were banned for players until they reach their 16thbirthday. Asked whether most academy players were represented by agents, HJ confirmed that was the case for most players once they reach 16 and agencies will contact players' families to seek to represent them.

OTHER ISSUES

DIVERSITY SURVEY

The Trust reported that members had been in contact about the recent diversity survey, with concerns about the reasons for the survey, how the information would be used and about the way in which the questions were constructed. The Trust had benefited from the discussion at the January meeting, and reflected it in the notes of that meeting, but if some context had been provided with the survey it might have helped elicit more responses.

PS explained that the questionnaire was produced by a third party, designed specifically to provoke consideration of issues, and the Club had little input on the questions. AM noted that there had been a high return rate, and that this was part of an exercise associated with research across the Premier League.

The Trust suggested that contextual information should be provided in all future surveys to help maximise responses, and should be provided with any reminders for this survey.

KICK IT OUT REPORTING NUMBER AND ANNIVERSARY

Trust members had requested that the facility provided by Kick It Out to report racial abuse on matchday be publicised more frequently. CM agreed to look into announcing it more frequently, and the possibility of displaying it on the electronic scoreboard. 

The Trust noted that it was Kick It Out's 25th anniversary, and that the Premier League wanted to highlight work done by clubs to coincide with the Kick It Out weekends in March.  The Trust offered to support and amplify what the Club was planning for the relevant home fixture (Manchester City)

MEDICAL TEAM UPDATES

The Trust requested that updates on players recovering from injuries be reinstated on the website and/or Fulham TV – they were popular in the past, and would be a welcome feature. CM agreed to do so.

Since the meeting the first such update has been produced by the Club.

PLANNING FOR NEXT SEASON

In addition to the points raised earlier in the meeting and at previous meetings on ticketing, the Trust asked about planning for next season given the possibility of playing in the Championship. AM responded that all at the Club were working hard to seek to stay in the Premier League and was confident that was achievable. However, a number of players were on short or loan contracts, or their contracts were due to expire. Others have relegation wage clauses. He also confirmed that clubs relegated the season after promotion receive parachute payments for two years.

The meeting, which started at 12.30pm, concluded at 3.15pm

[snarks]

thank you Statto

[toshes mate]

So are we creating the narrative that those who work in the scouting/recruiting department just take the months off until January or something? Even then, is there no transcript in which someone in the trust asks the actual question: "Don't you lot find targets before the January transfer window opens"? Surely not, probably because it is a stupid thing to ask, let alone assume.   

Surely we can't be that defiant to our club that we assume this is how it operates. Let's just give the benefit of the doubt that there is much, much, more to the story than we're assuming.

I think AM did a good job in explaining why we didn't get who we wanted, either because the club wanted to perform the deal, but the player did not, or vice versa.

I guess you'd put me in the stupid camp then, Matt10, because I'd have expected AM to say (as a legal representative might have suggested to him to in a more profound setting), that 'We track all our anticipated playing targets continuously for availability, for price, for priority, and for suitability for purpose' gently hinting that the process is not bound by windows at all. 

Of course any answer would still be open to ridicule at a certain level, for example, failure to deliver the potentially suitable and required recruits.  But in the setting, an FST meeting, and the context, lateness of activity, it really is a lame if anticipated response from AM, and if you really cannot see that then I feel sorry for you.  AM's response and your unintended implication either reduces FST meetings to the level of farce or points to the fact that AM should be better prepared facing legitimate questions from our representatives if he chooses to take them as seriously as the meeting warrants. 

I have served on similar panels in my lifetime and I know how tedious they can be and how evasive answers are.     

[ALG01]

Chambers was a fit central defender. MLM was a fit central defender/LB Bryan was a LB that had performed very well in the Championship. Yes the late arrival was an issue, but no one was panicking over it, concerned maybe, but that was all. It was the same with AFZA's arrival people were talking about his performance in the Europa league final.

Hindsight is fantastic but we are all guilty of looking at the transfer window like that now.

Many of us knew Chambers was not all that at CB and Bryan was just an OK Championship LB. Reading up then MLM was not rated in France and just being offloaded with Seri.
No hindsight, the incoming players were always a gamble and to think otherwise is eyebrow raising.

[Matt10]

So are we creating the narrative that those who work in the scouting/recruiting department just take the months off until January or something? Even then, is there no transcript in which someone in the trust asks the actual question: "Don't you lot find targets before the January transfer window opens"? Surely not, probably because it is a stupid thing to ask, let alone assume.   

Surely we can't be that defiant to our club that we assume this is how it operates. Let's just give the benefit of the doubt that there is much, much, more to the story than we're assuming.

I think AM did a good job in explaining why we didn't get who we wanted, either because the club wanted to perform the deal, but the player did not, or vice versa.

I guess you'd put me in the stupid camp then, Matt10, because I'd have expected AM to say (as a legal representative might have suggested to him to in a more profound setting), that 'We track all our anticipated playing targets continuously for availability, for price, for priority, and for suitability for purpose' gently hinting that the process is not bound by windows at all. 

Of course any answer would still be open to ridicule at a certain level, for example, failure to deliver the potentially suitable and required recruits.  But in the setting, an FST meeting, and the context, lateness of activity, it really is a lame if anticipated response from AM, and if you really cannot see that then I feel sorry for you.  AM's response and your unintended implication either reduces FST meetings to the level of farce or points to the fact that AM should be better prepared facing legitimate questions from our representatives if he chooses to take them as seriously as the meeting warrants. 

I have served on similar panels in my lifetime and I know how tedious they can be and how evasive answers are.   

I'm not putting anyone into a camp. I'm simply stating that if it's such an obvious question, why didn't anyone ask it? Why didn't anyone ask "So...what have your recruiting been doing before window?"

It's a stupid question. It's based on assumptions that are built from a mountain of momentum through the negativity of keyboard warriors.

Feel sorry for me all you want. You want to act like Fulham is your customer service hotline, and they need to say everything exactly to the way you want it, if not - then it's not good enough. Well, go figure, things aren't already going to be good enough because of the position we are in, right?

"My answer is we had players ready to sign, but then changed their mind. Or clubs not reaching back out to us when we're trying to complete a deal. Or we're so low in the table that noone wants to be part of a relegation battle, that also includes a relegation clause."

Customer: "That's not a good enough answer."

"Okay, did you ask the question to hear the answer, or did you ask for me to say what you wanted to hear?"

[MJG]

So are we creating the narrative that those who work in the scouting/recruiting department just take the months off until January or something? Even then, is there no transcript in which someone in the trust asks the actual question: "Don't you lot find targets before the January transfer window opens"? Surely not, probably because it is a stupid thing to ask, let alone assume.   

Surely we can't be that defiant to our club that we assume this is how it operates. Let's just give the benefit of the doubt that there is much, much, more to the story than we're assuming.

I think AM did a good job in explaining why we didn't get who we wanted, either because the club wanted to perform the deal, but the player did not, or vice versa.

I guess you'd put me in the stupid camp then, Matt10, because I'd have expected AM to say (as a legal representative might have suggested to him to in a more profound setting), that 'We track all our anticipated playing targets continuously for availability, for price, for priority, and for suitability for purpose' gently hinting that the process is not bound by windows at all. 

Of course any answer would still be open to ridicule at a certain level, for example, failure to deliver the potentially suitable and required recruits.  But in the setting, an FST meeting, and the context, lateness of activity, it really is a lame if anticipated response from AM, and if you really cannot see that then I feel sorry for you.  AM's response and your unintended implication either reduces FST meetings to the level of farce or points to the fact that AM should be better prepared facing legitimate questions from our representatives if he chooses to take them as seriously as the meeting warrants. 

I have served on similar panels in my lifetime and I know how tedious they can be and how evasive answers are.   

I'm not putting anyone into a camp. I'm simply stating that if it's such an obvious question, why didn't anyone ask it? Why didn't anyone ask "So...what have your recruiting been doing before window?"

It's a stupid question. It's based on assumptions that are built from a mountain of momentum through the negativity of keyboard warriors.

Feel sorry for me all you want. You want to act like Fulham is your customer service hotline, and they need to say everything exactly to the way you want it, if not - then it's not good enough. Well, go figure, things aren't already going to be good enough because of the position we are in, right?

"My answer is we had players ready to sign, but then changed their mind. Or clubs not reaching back out to us when we're trying to complete a deal. Or we're so low in the table that noone wants to be part of a relegation battle, that also includes a relegation clause."

Customer: "That's not a good enough answer."

"Okay, did you ask the question to hear the answer, or did you ask for me to say what you wanted to hear?"

as someone who has been in these meetings we have asked and reported back on the transfer process a million times. Of course they track all the time, their list updates after every game played and each player updated on scouts reports and stats updates.
These are notes not a transcript and when you have had the same question and discussion again and again over last four or five years it's not going to go into as much depth each time.