Tony Khan interview...

[RaySmith]

It is what it is.

Fulham are fortunate enough to have a millionaire owner, and Tony is his son, who heads the transfer team, which supposedly had a two tick way of acquiring players -  stats, and scouting reports - the manager's opinion is also asked for nd given, we've heard.

Fulham have spent a lot on players in recent seasons, though constrained by FFP, and a new stand is being built.
Thee have been some very  successful acquisitions and some unsuccessful - bought under stress to bring in players to Fulham. with a season in the Prem fast approaching.
But, even top clubs have expensive flops, as we well know.

Just think, we could be like Huddersfield, no money to spend on players, and facing another relegtion.

[The Rational Fan]

Tony Khan's worst signings were when Rui Fonte was our leading center-forward, and we wanted to buy some potentially good premier league footballers. Without Mitrovic signed up yet, I don't know if better players than Fabri, MLM, Seri, and Schurrle were available.

No sane player would join Fulham, thinking FFC could stay up with its best XI at the start of the window being: Betts; Christie, Odoi, Ream, R.Sess; KMac, Stefjo, Cairney; Kamara, Fonte, Atyie with Button, Djola and Kebano on the bench. This season, if we go up the squad may need some extra players, but the squad will have more depth already at the club, especially with loan players returned.

[Dr Quinzel]

I respect the variety of opinions on here, but the level to which some staunchly defend him always feels beyond belief to me.

For example, I don't understand the 'he has access to his fathers money' argument. If Khan Sr is only willing to finance us on the basis of his son being in a role, then he would be a very poor owner. I don't believe this view actually holds any weight, but it's often trotted out as it is impossible to disprove.

I think the opinions that should be heeded by us as fans are from those within the game, where if you dig deep enough to ask, Fulham's reputation has taken a nosedive under Tony. We are often laughed at.

[alfie]

I respect the variety of opinions on here, but the level to which some staunchly defend him always feels beyond belief to me.

For example, I don't understand the 'he has access to his fathers money' argument. If Khan Sr is only willing to finance us on the basis of his son being in a role, then he would be a very poor owner. I don't believe this view actually holds any weight, but it's often trotted out as it is impossible to disprove.

I think the opinions that should be heeded by us as fans are from those within the game, where if you dig deep enough to ask, Fulham's reputation has taken a nosedive under Tony. We are often laughed at.

I'm guessing that over the years you have been learning about football, why is it so hard to believe that TK cannot do the same, the arrogance of us supporters in believing that only we know best.
To be honest I have not really noticed anyone laughing.
The guy has made mistakes of course he has, which is something we all do, but we try and learn from those mistakes, I for one believe that he has, but as we all know it's all about opinions.

[Sting of the North]

I respect the variety of opinions on here, but the level to which some staunchly defend him always feels beyond belief to me.

For example, I don't understand the 'he has access to his fathers money' argument. If Khan Sr is only willing to finance us on the basis of his son being in a role, then he would be a very poor owner. I don't believe this view actually holds any weight, but it's often trotted out as it is impossible to disprove.

I think the opinions that should be heeded by us as fans are from those within the game, where if you dig deep enough to ask, Fulham's reputation has taken a nosedive under Tony. We are often laughed at.

How is your statement that "Fulham's reputation has taken a nosedive under Tony" any different than the argument that "he has access to his fathers money"? Aren't both statements difficult or impossible to prove, and most likely just something that is repeated by a small number of people until they themselves and a select few others believe it to be true? Or is there any factual basis for this reputational "nosedive", and if so is there any factual evidence that said "nosedive" is because of TK?

[Penfold]

With regard to FFC's reputation in football taking a nosedive, one person did mention this to me last summer whilst i was spending an afternoon at cricket. Gentleman in question does scouting (mainly in Europe, often France) and seemed quite fond of Fulham but was scathing in how club operates. I won't say too much as some of the stuff he said could lead in legal proceedings against this forum.

It is of course, entirely possible, that he might hold a grudge for whatever reason.

[Dr Quinzel]

You see, I think in some ways he has stepped aside with the Javi appointment.

Now TK has stepped back a little, it will be interesting to see if the investment into the team continues, or will the investment be more careful.

If not the investment, but the selection of transfers has needed to be more careful/astute for some time. Paying top dollar doesn't necessarily get you the best players. Not just them, but see Brentford as an example.

I'd prefer the DOF to spend the biggest budget to build the 2nd best squad, than the 10th biggest budget for the 5th best squad.

University research for NFL teams has proven when owners become less involved in the day to day running of the club, the owner investment decreases and the team slides. Spending a small amount money well is not as good at building a squad as spending a large amount of money poorly.

Be careful what you wish for. If you want the owners son to be less involved with the club, i'm sure it will end in tears.

Explain the Dallas Cowboys then?

[Dr Quinzel]

I respect the variety of opinions on here, but the level to which some staunchly defend him always feels beyond belief to me.

For example, I don't understand the 'he has access to his fathers money' argument. If Khan Sr is only willing to finance us on the basis of his son being in a role, then he would be a very poor owner. I don't believe this view actually holds any weight, but it's often trotted out as it is impossible to disprove.

I think the opinions that should be heeded by us as fans are from those within the game, where if you dig deep enough to ask, Fulham's reputation has taken a nosedive under Tony. We are often laughed at.

How is your statement that "Fulham's reputation has taken a nosedive under Tony" any different than the argument that "he has access to his fathers money"? Aren't both statements difficult or impossible to prove, and most likely just something that is repeated by a small number of people until they themselves and a select few others believe it to be true? Or is there any factual basis for this reputational "nosedive", and if so is there any factual evidence that said "nosedive" is because of TK?

Ask around - if you know people in the game, or even just in football media, they'll tell you. I suppose I can evidence it, because it is peoples words/opinions and how do you evidence an opinion? But I've spoken to ex-players and current media people and it isn't favourable.

[Dr Quinzel]

I respect the variety of opinions on here, but the level to which some staunchly defend him always feels beyond belief to me.

For example, I don't understand the 'he has access to his fathers money' argument. If Khan Sr is only willing to finance us on the basis of his son being in a role, then he would be a very poor owner. I don't believe this view actually holds any weight, but it's often trotted out as it is impossible to disprove.

I think the opinions that should be heeded by us as fans are from those within the game, where if you dig deep enough to ask, Fulham's reputation has taken a nosedive under Tony. We are often laughed at.

I'm guessing that over the years you have been learning about football, why is it so hard to believe that TK cannot do the same, the arrogance of us supporters in believing that only we know best.
To be honest I have not really noticed anyone laughing.
The guy has made mistakes of course he has, which is something we all do, but we try and learn from those mistakes, I for one believe that he has, but as we all know it's all about opinions.

I'm not really talking about his ability/experience here when I say I am surprised as to how people feel about his involvement, but as you asked why is it not OK for him to learn, I suppose my answer is this? It isn't a problem at all. But to learn on the job? For that role, that seems insane to me. The club is important to so many; yet an amateur was given the wheel. He assumed control when he didn't have the experience to do so. At that position, I would want the very best and a senior official with someone under them who learns, not the other way around.

[Sting of the North]

I respect the variety of opinions on here, but the level to which some staunchly defend him always feels beyond belief to me.

For example, I don't understand the 'he has access to his fathers money' argument. If Khan Sr is only willing to finance us on the basis of his son being in a role, then he would be a very poor owner. I don't believe this view actually holds any weight, but it's often trotted out as it is impossible to disprove.

I think the opinions that should be heeded by us as fans are from those within the game, where if you dig deep enough to ask, Fulham's reputation has taken a nosedive under Tony. We are often laughed at.

I'm guessing that over the years you have been learning about football, why is it so hard to believe that TK cannot do the same, the arrogance of us supporters in believing that only we know best.
To be honest I have not really noticed anyone laughing.
The guy has made mistakes of course he has, which is something we all do, but we try and learn from those mistakes, I for one believe that he has, but as we all know it's all about opinions.

I'm not really talking about his ability/experience here when I say I am surprised as to how people feel about his involvement, but as you asked why is it not OK for him to learn, I suppose my answer is this? It isn't a problem at all. But to learn on the job? For that role, that seems insane to me. The club is important to so many; yet an amateur was given the wheel. He assumed control when he didn't have the experience to do so. At that position, I would want the very best and a senior official with someone under them who learns, not the other way around.

Isn't this very common though in football? That you learn on the job? Like Zidane took over Real Madrid with close to zero experience. Or Lampard, or Gerrard, or lots of people. I agree that it often seems bizarre, but sometimes it works out. For me the main issue is whether or not he has good experienced advisors or not, and whether or not he listens to them.

[Sting of the North]

I respect the variety of opinions on here, but the level to which some staunchly defend him always feels beyond belief to me.

For example, I don't understand the 'he has access to his fathers money' argument. If Khan Sr is only willing to finance us on the basis of his son being in a role, then he would be a very poor owner. I don't believe this view actually holds any weight, but it's often trotted out as it is impossible to disprove.

I think the opinions that should be heeded by us as fans are from those within the game, where if you dig deep enough to ask, Fulham's reputation has taken a nosedive under Tony. We are often laughed at.

How is your statement that "Fulham's reputation has taken a nosedive under Tony" any different than the argument that "he has access to his fathers money"? Aren't both statements difficult or impossible to prove, and most likely just something that is repeated by a small number of people until they themselves and a select few others believe it to be true? Or is there any factual basis for this reputational "nosedive", and if so is there any factual evidence that said "nosedive" is because of TK?

Ask around - if you know people in the game, or even just in football media, they'll tell you. I suppose I can evidence it, because it is peoples words/opinions and how do you evidence an opinion? But I've spoken to ex-players and current media people and it isn't favourable.

You are correct that you probably can't evidence it because it is entirely subjective. I also don't know of course what your sample size is, but there is always a risk of people parroting the views of those they interact with. The more important question may be whether the people he actually has to deal with is holding this view. He seems to be able to attract decent enough players for a club of Fulham's stature at least, so there's that. Personally, I do not know people that in any way deals with transfers on FFC's level, so I have no opinion on the matter.

[Dr Quinzel]

I respect the variety of opinions on here, but the level to which some staunchly defend him always feels beyond belief to me.

For example, I don't understand the 'he has access to his fathers money' argument. If Khan Sr is only willing to finance us on the basis of his son being in a role, then he would be a very poor owner. I don't believe this view actually holds any weight, but it's often trotted out as it is impossible to disprove.

I think the opinions that should be heeded by us as fans are from those within the game, where if you dig deep enough to ask, Fulham's reputation has taken a nosedive under Tony. We are often laughed at.

I'm guessing that over the years you have been learning about football, why is it so hard to believe that TK cannot do the same, the arrogance of us supporters in believing that only we know best.
To be honest I have not really noticed anyone laughing.
The guy has made mistakes of course he has, which is something we all do, but we try and learn from those mistakes, I for one believe that he has, but as we all know it's all about opinions.

I'm not really talking about his ability/experience here when I say I am surprised as to how people feel about his involvement, but as you asked why is it not OK for him to learn, I suppose my answer is this? It isn't a problem at all. But to learn on the job? For that role, that seems insane to me. The club is important to so many; yet an amateur was given the wheel. He assumed control when he didn't have the experience to do so. At that position, I would want the very best and a senior official with someone under them who learns, not the other way around.

Isn't this very common though in football? That you learn on the job? Like Zidane took over Real Madrid with close to zero experience. Or Lampard, or Gerrard, or lots of people. I agree that it often seems bizarre, but sometimes it works out. For me the main issue is whether or not he has good experienced advisors or not, and whether or not he listens to them.

It's common in certain roles; but even Gerrard and Lampard did cut their teeth first. Decades in the sport, and then both had coaching roles in youth teams (although I'm not sure on Lampard prior to Derby now I have said that), so you could say they haven't just dived straight into the hot seat. Prior to Javi, who would we say is TK's advisor? It didn't seem as though he came with one, but he swept all aside in order to be on top; and I say that as my perception of how it was, following on from reading the ramblings of the man on twitter for whom we shall not name.

I re-read my initial post, and I should word it more clearly. My surprise is not that people hold the views, but my surprise or what takes me back is that I see can see things one way and that so many people feel almost entirely the other. It's always a bit of a 'really? how?' moment. These discussions are open to everyone so you hear more views that maybe you would from inside your hub of friends/fellow fans you often engage with.

[Statto]

Like Zidane took over Real Madrid with close to zero experience. Or Lampard, or Gerrard, or lots of people.

I don't wish to engage in the TK bashing but the individuals you've named there are some of the biggest and most successful names in football, albeit not for achievements as managers. To compare TK to them is so shockingly absurd, I can only assume you were being ironic and I've missed it somehow...

[Sting of the North]

Like Zidane took over Real Madrid with close to zero experience. Or Lampard, or Gerrard, or lots of people.

I don't wish to engage in the TK bashing but the individuals you've named there are some of the biggest and most successful names in football, albeit not for achievements as managers. To compare TK to them is so shockingly absurd, I can only assume you were being ironic and I've missed it somehow...

Not ironic at all. You may believe that the comparison is shockingly absurd all you like, but it doesn't make it untrue. It probably makes you easily shocked though. The point (in case you care at all) was that people are hired for roles for which they are seemingly not qualified all the time. In the case of Zidane and company (including Parker, although he had at least a little more experience) it was because they were big name players. In TK's case it is because he is his fathers son. Neither should qualify you for such a high position in such a big club, but yet it happens all the time. I never stated that it was on the same level, just the same idea of having a short cut to a high position.

[joef]

I have worked in the media for over 20 years and can assure you there are a lot of lazy journos. They perpetuate myths, cliches and hearsay when it comes to the smaller clubs because it doesn't make sales or clicks the way stories about 'big clubs' do. They simply, with the odd exception, don't do their homework.

I still hear 'Fulham blew £100m on new buys when they got promoted and abandoned their promotion team' whilst blindly ignoring the fact we had to convert or replace an impossible amount of loanees. These same journos have little to say about Villa spending more this season.

So yes, I hear things said by journos about the Khans and the club but take it with a pinch of salt. Whispers turn to shouts. There may be a seed of truth but it's been perpetuated and magnified as journos pay it forward in a lazy fashion.

[Dr Quinzel]

I think those journalists do exist, but there's also a lot of good and thorough journos too who aren't the most, how can I put it... praising, of TK/Fulham these days. Obviously their opinions hold no more weight than you or I, but it's an example of voices outside of Fulham and how we are perceived now vs recent times.

[Dr Quinzel]

Like Zidane took over Real Madrid with close to zero experience. Or Lampard, or Gerrard, or lots of people.

I don't wish to engage in the TK bashing but the individuals you've named there are some of the biggest and most successful names in football, albeit not for achievements as managers. To compare TK to them is so shockingly absurd, I can only assume you were being ironic and I've missed it somehow...

Not ironic at all. You may believe that the comparison is shockingly absurd all you like, but it doesn't make it untrue. It probably makes you easily shocked though. The point (in case you care at all) was that people are hired for roles for which they are seemingly not qualified all the time. In the case of Zidane and company (including Parker, although he had at least a little more experience) it was because they were big name players. In TK's case it is because he is his fathers son. Neither should qualify you for such a high position in such a big club, but yet it happens all the time. I never stated that it was on the same level, just the same idea of having a short cut to a high position.

It was possibly an extreme comparison/not the best comparison because of their history within the game. The closest I can think of is when the Wigan owner made his young grandson chairman. It's hard to find examples of this, because it is so, so unusual within professional sport. Part of why so many dislike it.

[AnOldBrownie]

I respect the variety of opinions on here, but the level to which some staunchly defend him always feels beyond belief to me.

For example, I don't understand the 'he has access to his fathers money' argument. If Khan Sr is only willing to finance us on the basis of his son being in a role, then he would be a very poor owner. I don't believe this view actually holds any weight, but it's often trotted out as it is impossible to disprove.

I think the opinions that should be heeded by us as fans are from those within the game, where if you dig deep enough to ask, Fulham's reputation has taken a nosedive under Tony. We are often laughed at.

How has the clubs reputation taken a nose dive other than the EPL being too difficult a task for Slava and Claudio?

We're not losing players we want to keep. We bring in apparently talented footballers. The owner isn't afraid to invest in the club. The youth development is good at the club even though first team opportunities could be made more readily available to them.

Sorry...I SEE growth and success under TK (comparing the results to various comparable clubs), even though I also see the missteps as well.

Learning on the job as a DoF is probably one of the worst ways to start the position...but honestly... he's still making it work.



Sent from my CMR-W19 using Tapatalk

[ALG01]

i look at this way.
If TK had to stand on his own two feet and did not have his dad's money to play with
no other team would even begin to want to employ him
no other team would have even given him an interview for the job
in short he is an amateur and it shows. he does not have the requisite experience and does not really seem to comprehend what is going on around him. his fiction during the interview is what he believes and that is troubling.

I do believe he loves the club and wants what is best but unfortunately he cannot see that what is best is him stepping away from anything to do with team matters.

The idea anyone would emply him other than us is laughable, and that in the end is the fact that makes all the defence of him melt away.

[AnOldBrownie]

i look at this way.
If TK had to stand on his own two feet and did not have his dad's money to play with
no other team would even begin to want to employ him
no other team would have even given him an interview for the job
in short he is an amateur and it shows. he does not have the requisite experience and does not really seem to comprehend what is going on around him. his fiction during the interview is what he believes and that is troubling.

I do believe he loves the club and wants what is best but unfortunately he cannot see that what is best is him stepping away from anything to do with team matters.

The idea anyone would emply him other than us is laughable, and that in the end is the fact that makes all the defence of him melt away.

It's also irrelevant.   Much more experienced directors of football operations have done much worse than him at their respected clubs, regardless of their experience.

He loves the club and it's doing well.