I see the Fulhamish pod have done an interview with Tony khan, should be interesting when it comes out. Apparently he's very honest about transfers etc.
I'm less interested about transfers. More interested in how he views the right way to manage a club, his roles and responsibilities to hiring and firing managers and expectations of them... and why he thinks he's done so poorly.
Plus why he didn't address our weakest area - our defence - in the summer we went up and which subsequently saw us get relegated.
Buying two keepers and an injury prone CB and one good CB who turned into a cm does not count as addressing the quality of those that stayed from the Championship or who are championship quality.
I think it will be very interesting.
Aside from the obvious criticisms about his lack of knowledge/experience and various questionable transfers, decisions etc., he has also been very poor at PR.
Telling fans to go to hell on Twitter, his lack of contrition, humility and self-awareness in the FST interview, etc, have made him almost universally disliked by fans, which is particularly poor considering his dad is relatively popular at the moment.
Is giving this interview an acknowledgment of that? Will he show a bit of humility this time?
Or will he be as obnoxious as last time and tell us how stupid we are for not realising how good his signings are?
I love the way some people don't like Tony Khan and quantify their dislike by saying things like Khan is universally disliked. That is poppy ****. I have no dislike for the guy and dislike some peoples attitude on here much more. Yes Khan has made mistakes but so have a lot of people in their working life. It doesn't make them bad people
Quote from: Andy S on June 24, 2019, 11:02:02 PM
I love the way some people don't like Tony Khan and quantify their dislike by saying things like Khan is universally disliked. That is poppy ****. I have no dislike for the guy and dislike some peoples attitude on here much more. Yes Khan has made mistakes but so have a lot of people in their working life. It doesn't make them bad people
+1
Quote from: Andy S on June 24, 2019, 11:02:02 PM
I love the way some people don't like Tony Khan and quantify their dislike by saying things like Khan is universally disliked. That is poppy ****. I have no dislike for the guy and dislike some peoples attitude on here much more. Yes Khan has made mistakes but so have a lot of people in their working life. It doesn't make them bad people
I love the way some people ignore qualifying words like "almost"
+2
Quote from: General on June 24, 2019, 09:00:55 PM
I'm less interested about transfers. More interested in how he views the right way to manage a club, his roles and responsibilities to hiring and firing managers and expectations of them... and why he thinks he's done so poorly.
Plus why he didn't address our weakest area - our defence - in the summer we went up and which subsequently saw us get relegated.
Buying two keepers and an injury prone CB and one good CB who turned into a cm does not count as addressing the quality of those that stayed from the Championship or who are championship quality.
I will never understand why people seem to believe that TK didn't address our defence last summer. Signing 5 defenders and 2 goalkeepers would count as addressing our defence in my book. Ultimately not successfully, but that is surely only partly down to the actual acquisitions. Of course, if we conveniently and arbitrary don't count any actual acquisitions he made, then he didn't address defence.
Quote from: Andy S on June 24, 2019, 11:02:02 PM
I love the way some people don't like Tony Khan and quantify their dislike by saying things like Khan is universally disliked. That is poppy ****. I have no dislike for the guy and dislike some peoples attitude on here much more. Yes Khan has made mistakes but so have a lot of people in their working life. It doesn't make them bad people
strangely O agree with you 100% but there is always a but and it is this
we all know (or at least i believe the majority of us are of the very definite belief if you prefer) that Mr Khan jnr would not get a job at any other top professional club and even if by some miracle he did, he would have been thrown out ages ago.
I think that really is the problem. I am sure he wants what is best, and he probably believes he knows what he is doing but the evidence would suggest otherwise.
I do not think anyone dislikes him per se, just he is in the wrong job.
Exactly. How could I dislike the guy, I have never met him. I do however take the view that he is ill qualified for his job and, unsurprisingly, has done pretty poorly so far.
Quote from: ALG01 on June 24, 2019, 11:54:51 PM
Quote from: Andy S on June 24, 2019, 11:02:02 PM
I love the way some people don't like Tony Khan and quantify their dislike by saying things like Khan is universally disliked. That is poppy ****. I have no dislike for the guy and dislike some peoples attitude on here much more. Yes Khan has made mistakes but so have a lot of people in their working life. It doesn't make them bad people
Mr Khan jnr would not get a job at any other top professional club and even if by some miracle he did, he would have been thrown out ages ago.
This is true, not for him as a person and just purely on the work done.
In the Data Science community, Fulham's recruitment policy is very far away from the machine learning or deep learning process that can produce a close to perfect theoretical result.
Data Science cannot work on its own.
They are there to help an already good (no need to be great) team of people who understand their non-tech craft.
We need to fill up those scouting jobs (and other relevant backroom staff positions) at Fulham first and not downsize it.
I can say a lot of thing about effective Data Science but the resources are a lot out there if you guys want to read about it.
I think a further solution is to invest in a team of Top Notch Data Scientists, and not depend on the knowledge of recently graduated or untested practitioner.
Even Google needed to put in USD500million to acquire a London based AI company called Deepmind before being able to skyrocket their prominence in this new technology.
Quote from: Sting of the North on June 24, 2019, 11:17:13 PM
Quote from: General on June 24, 2019, 09:00:55 PM
I'm less interested about transfers. More interested in how he views the right way to manage a club, his roles and responsibilities to hiring and firing managers and expectations of them... and why he thinks he's done so poorly.
Plus why he didn't address our weakest area - our defence - in the summer we went up and which subsequently saw us get relegated.
Buying two keepers and an injury prone CB and one good CB who turned into a cm does not count as addressing the quality of those that stayed from the Championship or who are championship quality.
I will never understand why people seem to believe that TK didn't address our defence last summer. Signing 5 defenders and 2 goalkeepers would count as addressing our defence in my book. Ultimately not successfully, but that is surely only partly down to the actual acquisitions. Of course, if we conveniently and arbitrary don't count any actual acquisitions he made, then he didn't address defence.
Fulham conceded 18 goals in the last 26 league games of 17/18 (with Betts, Odoi, Ream and McDonald), but we conceded 59 goals in the first 26 games of 18/19. While recruitment can explain why we didn't improve or weaker at FB, I really would love to know how any team can go from 18 to 59 goals per 26 games.
If main reason for the rise is the two leagues are just enormously different, then we can be very optimistic that we can repeat close to 17/18 form, because if we only conceded 18 goals in our first 26 games this season, we are well on track for gaining automatic promotion.
Quote from: ALG01 on June 24, 2019, 11:54:51 PM
Mr Khan jnr would not get a job at any other top professional club and even if by some miracle he did, he would have been thrown out ages ago.
Yes he would get a job at another club, as Tony Khan is working for free, its pretty easy to get a job at zero wages and most non-profit jobs get a fancy title like "Director of Football". I also think many other Championship Clubs would let him buy players as he was probably the only person able to source money for new players. Many clubs in Championship failed to source money last season, with only ten championship clubs having net transfer budgets over £4m (with only six of the ten over £10m) and nine clubs even had negative transfer budgets.
I have no doubt a DOF that works for free, that can source £10m+ every season would get a job at most Championship Clubs. Other clubs are surely jealous.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 02:12:13 AM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 24, 2019, 11:54:51 PM
Mr Khan jnr would not get a job at any other top professional club and even if by some miracle he did, he would have been thrown out ages ago.
Yes he would get a job at another club, as Tony Khan is working for free, its pretty easy to get a job at zero wages and most non-profit jobs get a fancy title like "Director of Football". I also think many other Championship Clubs would let him buy players as he was probably the only person able to source money for new players. Many clubs in Championship failed to source money last season, with only ten championship clubs having net transfer budgets over £4m (with only six of the ten over £10m) and nine clubs even had negative transfer budgets.
I have no doubt a DOF that works for free, that can source £10m+ every season would get a job at most Championship Clubs. Other clubs are surely jealous.
Irony?
Quote from: Twig on June 25, 2019, 05:43:18 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 02:12:13 AM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 24, 2019, 11:54:51 PM
Mr Khan jnr would not get a job at any other top professional club and even if by some miracle he did, he would have been thrown out ages ago.
Yes he would get a job at another club, as Tony Khan is working for free, its pretty easy to get a job at zero wages and most non-profit jobs get a fancy title like "Director of Football". I also think many other Championship Clubs would let him buy players as he was probably the only person able to source money for new players. Many clubs in Championship failed to source money last season, with only ten championship clubs having net transfer budgets over £4m (with only six of the ten over £10m) and nine clubs even had negative transfer budgets.
I have no doubt a DOF that works for free, that can source £10m+ every season would get a job at most Championship Clubs. Other clubs are surely jealous.
Irony?
I am "dead serious". Do you think if someone walked into Blackburn Rovers (whose entire squad was bought for £4.05m of which £1.71m was spent last year) and said "they want to work for free as DoF and have access to billions of pounds of capital", that Blackburn Rovers would say no?
Please suggest a DoF that would do a better job at Blackburn Rovers than Tony Khan. If Slavisa Jokavoic was DOF there, he'd have a transfer budget of around £1.7m, but it wouldn't go far with his own wages of at least £1.5m. Clearly, Tony Khan would be a better DoF than Slavisa Jokavoic.
Blackburn Rovers left the Premier League just before us and without funding, probably won't be back in the Premier League for a long long time. The reason Blackburn will not get in the Premier League is their DoF cannot get any money.
Last Season in the Championship, the Eleven DoFs that managed to get the most funding made up nine of the top ten places in the Championship (Sheffield United, Hull City and Stoke being the exceptions).
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 02:12:13 AM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 24, 2019, 11:54:51 PM
Mr Khan jnr would not get a job at any other top professional club and even if by some miracle he did, he would have been thrown out ages ago.
Yes he would get a job at another club, as Tony Khan is working for free, its pretty easy to get a job at zero wages and most non-profit jobs get a fancy title like "Director of Football". I also think many other Championship Clubs would let him buy players as he was probably the only person able to source money for new players. Many clubs in Championship failed to source money last season, with only ten championship clubs having net transfer budgets over £4m (with only six of the ten over £10m) and nine clubs even had negative transfer budgets.
I have no doubt a DOF that works for free, that can source £10m+ every season would get a job at most Championship Clubs. Other clubs are surely jealous.
How many times can you rehash and repeat the same argument? "Tony Khan is a great DoF because he has a rich dad"....
Surely it's crossed your mind that most posters are saying his dad's money is not soldered to TK's arse and as such could be, and would be much better off, spent by a more competent, alternative DoF.
In any case, disregarding non-football spending on the ground etc, I'd rather have another DoF even if it meant losing his dad's contribution to the transfer budget. Under FFP, that contribution was limited to £13m in 16/17 (Sigurdsson, Jozabed and Kebano), £13m in 17/18 (Fonte and Kamara) and £35m in 18/19 (Anguissa and Seri's left leg). I suspect a competent DoF would have been able to find better players than that lot in the loan and free transfer markets.
Quote from: Statto on June 24, 2019, 11:14:37 PM
Quote from: Andy S on June 24, 2019, 11:02:02 PM
I love the way some people don't like Tony Khan and quantify their dislike by saying things like Khan is universally disliked. That is poppy ****. I have no dislike for the guy and dislike some peoples attitude on here much more. Yes Khan has made mistakes but so have a lot of people in their working life. It doesn't make them bad people
I love the way ::off_Topic:: some people ignore qualifying words like "almost"
And what do you base "almost" on? The people that post on here, friends those you sit next to at games?
Some of our transfers and loans have worked some haven't. That hasn't changed since I started going back in the late 60's. Just the amounts spent. I'm interested to see what he has to say.
Quote from: Statto on June 25, 2019, 07:49:39 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 02:12:13 AM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 24, 2019, 11:54:51 PM
Mr Khan jnr would not get a job at any other top professional club and even if by some miracle he did, he would have been thrown out ages ago.
Yes he would get a job at another club, as Tony Khan is working for free, its pretty easy to get a job at zero wages and most non-profit jobs get a fancy title like "Director of Football". I also think many other Championship Clubs would let him buy players as he was probably the only person able to source money for new players. Many clubs in Championship failed to source money last season, with only ten championship clubs having net transfer budgets over £4m (with only six of the ten over £10m) and nine clubs even had negative transfer budgets.
I have no doubt a DOF that works for free, that can source £10m+ every season would get a job at most Championship Clubs. Other clubs are surely jealous.
How many times can you rehash and repeat the same argument? "Tony Khan is a great DoF because he has a rich dad"....
Surely it's crossed your mind that most posters are saying his dad's money is not soldered to TK's arse and as such could be, and would be much better off, spent by a more competent, alternative DoF.
In any case, disregarding non-football spending on the ground etc, I'd rather have another DoF even if it meant losing his dad's contribution to the transfer budget. Under FFP, that contribution was limited to £13m in 16/17 (Sigurdsson, Jozabed and Kebano), £13m in 17/18 (Fonte and Kamara) and £35m in 18/19 (Anguissa and Seri's left leg). I suspect a competent DoF would have been able to find better players than that lot in the loan and free transfer markets.
Yes, Tony Khan was responsible for obtaining the money and wasting the money on Sigurdsson, Jozabed, Kebano, Fonte, Kamara, Anguissa and Seri. So, another DoF would have to do better for 60m than Fabri, Christie, Bryan, Odoi, Mawson, McDonald, Jonasen, Vietto, Atyie and Mitrovoic. The Top 20% of DoF could do better than that with 60m, but most DoFs wouldn't. I am certain we won't get the top 20% of DoFs, they probably won't apply, but if they do they won't get selected.
And, you may have noticed we probable have one of the worst selection committees for selecting a new DoF so don't expect a quality DoF replacement. If Fulham ever get to Newcastle position, our owners unlike Mike Ashley have enough available free cash flow (i.e. money) to get to the next level including the Europa League.
Quote from: Andy S on June 24, 2019, 11:02:02 PM
I love the way some people don't like Tony Khan and quantify their dislike by saying things like Khan is universally disliked. That is poppy ****. I have no dislike for the guy and dislike some peoples attitude on here much more. Yes Khan has made mistakes but so have a lot of people in their working life. It doesn't make them bad people
What do personal 'likes' and 'dislikes' or 'good' and 'bad' have to do with expressing opinion or comment about A.N.Other? I am totally indifferent about the Khans apart from our common interest in a football club that I had before either of them knew Fulham was even a place on the planet.
Quote from: I Ronic on June 25, 2019, 08:05:26 AM
And what do you base "almost" on? The people that post on here, friends those you sit next to at games?
Yes
Quote from: I Ronic on June 25, 2019, 08:05:26 AM
I'm interested to see what he has to say.
So am I. That was the first line of my post.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 08:24:54 AM
Quote from: Statto on June 25, 2019, 07:49:39 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 02:12:13 AM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 24, 2019, 11:54:51 PM
Mr Khan jnr would not get a job at any other top professional club and even if by some miracle he did, he would have been thrown out ages ago.
Yes he would get a job at another club, as Tony Khan is working for free, its pretty easy to get a job at zero wages and most non-profit jobs get a fancy title like "Director of Football". I also think many other Championship Clubs would let him buy players as he was probably the only person able to source money for new players. Many clubs in Championship failed to source money last season, with only ten championship clubs having net transfer budgets over £4m (with only six of the ten over £10m) and nine clubs even had negative transfer budgets.
I have no doubt a DOF that works for free, that can source £10m+ every season would get a job at most Championship Clubs. Other clubs are surely jealous.
How many times can you rehash and repeat the same argument? "Tony Khan is a great DoF because he has a rich dad"....
Surely it's crossed your mind that most posters are saying his dad's money is not soldered to TK's arse and as such could be, and would be much better off, spent by a more competent, alternative DoF.
In any case, disregarding non-football spending on the ground etc, I'd rather have another DoF even if it meant losing his dad's contribution to the transfer budget. Under FFP, that contribution was limited to £13m in 16/17 (Sigurdsson, Jozabed and Kebano), £13m in 17/18 (Fonte and Kamara) and £35m in 18/19 (Anguissa and Seri's left leg). I suspect a competent DoF would have been able to find better players than that lot in the loan and free transfer markets.
Yes, Tony Khan was responsible for obtaining the money and wasting the money on Sigurdsson, Jozabed, Kebano, Fonte, Kamara, Anguissa and Seri. So, another DoF would have to do better for 60m than Fabri, Christie, Bryan, Odoi, Mawson, McDonald, Jonasen, Vietto, Atyie and Mitrovoic. The Top 20% of DoF could do better than that with 60m, but most DoFs wouldn't. I am certain we won't get the top 20% of DoFs, they probably won't apply, but if they do they won't get selected.
And, you may have noticed we probable have one of the worst selection committees for selecting a new DoF so don't expect a quality DoF replacement. If Fulham ever get to Newcastle position, our owners unlike Mike Ashley have enough available free cash flow (i.e. money) to get to the next level including the Europa League.
We're in the top 20% of professional English clubs in terms of resources, and almost certainly in the top 10% across Europe, so that's the level of DoF we should/would have.
Quote from: Statto on June 25, 2019, 08:58:15 AM
Quote from: I Ronic on June 25, 2019, 08:05:26 AM
And what do you base "almost" on? The people that post on here, friends those you sit next to at games?
Yes
Quote from: I Ronic on June 25, 2019, 08:05:26 AM
I'm interested to see what he has to say.
So am I. That was the first line of my post.
Hardly universal then but it's a football forum and assumptions are often plonked on here and.probably most forums, as truths.
Quote from: I Ronic on June 25, 2019, 09:09:50 AM
Quote from: Statto on June 25, 2019, 08:58:15 AM
Quote from: I Ronic on June 25, 2019, 08:05:26 AM
And what do you base "almost" on? The people that post on here, friends those you sit next to at games?
Yes
Quote from: I Ronic on June 25, 2019, 08:05:26 AM
I'm interested to see what he has to say.
So am I. That was the first line of my post.
Hardly universal then
Hence I said "almost" and not "universal"
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 08:24:54 AM
Yes, Tony Khan was responsible for obtaining the money and wasting the money on Sigurdsson, Jozabed, Kebano, Fonte, Kamara, Anguissa and Seri. So, another DoF would have to do better for 60m than Fabri, Christie, Bryan, Odoi, Mawson, McDonald, Jonasen, Vietto, Atyie and Mitrovoic. The Top 20% of DoF could do better than that with 60m, but most DoFs wouldn't. I am certain we won't get the top 20% of DoFs, they probably won't apply, but if they do they won't get selected.
And, you may have noticed we probable have one of the worst selection committees for selecting a new DoF so don't expect a quality DoF replacement. If Fulham ever get to Newcastle position, our owners unlike Mike Ashley have enough available free cash flow (i.e. money) to get to the next level including the Europa League.
If the main argument of keeping someone in a particular position is that "it could be even worse", then I believe that the aim is set too low. Surely, FFC should aspire to improve. One suggestion in that regard is to replace the current DoF. This suggestion can be made while at the same time acknowledging that it may not happen. If one is dead certain that we are stuck with TK, this may of course seem as a pointless discussion. Myself, I tend not to be very certain on anything going on at the club most of the time since I acknowledge that I am almost certainly lacking vital insight into many important aspects of the inner workings at FFC.
Quote from: Statto on June 25, 2019, 09:11:21 AM
Quote from: I Ronic on June 25, 2019, 09:09:50 AM
Quote from: Statto on June 25, 2019, 08:58:15 AM
Quote from: I Ronic on June 25, 2019, 08:05:26 AM
And what do you base "almost" on? The people that post on here, friends those you sit next to at games?
Yes
Quote from: I Ronic on June 25, 2019, 08:05:26 AM
I'm interested to see what he has to say.
So am I. That was the first line of my post.
Hardly universal then
Hence I said "almost" and not "universal"
You could just as easily have said "amongst the people I talk to we don't like him much" however it's semantics which is pointless. It's just a view, like mine which is he gets a lot of hugely unwarranted stick because he is the owners son.
However, you could see his passion after the playoff win, and I'm sure he is gutted that the club was relegated, I like the fact he had a go back at some idiot on twitter, there is no reason why he should put up with abuse. I like that he cares that much, I'll be interested in what he says in the podcast.
Quote from: Sting of the North on June 25, 2019, 09:19:17 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 08:24:54 AM
Yes, Tony Khan was responsible for obtaining the money and wasting the money on Sigurdsson, Jozabed, Kebano, Fonte, Kamara, Anguissa and Seri. So, another DoF would have to do better for 60m than Fabri, Christie, Bryan, Odoi, Mawson, McDonald, Jonasen, Vietto, Atyie and Mitrovoic. The Top 20% of DoF could do better than that with 60m, but most DoFs wouldn't. I am certain we won't get the top 20% of DoFs, they probably won't apply, but if they do they won't get selected.
And, you may have noticed we probable have one of the worst selection committees for selecting a new DoF so don't expect a quality DoF replacement. If Fulham ever get to Newcastle position, our owners unlike Mike Ashley have enough available free cash flow (i.e. money) to get to the next level including the Europa League.
If the main argument of keeping someone in a particular position is that "it could be even worse", then I believe that the aim is set too low. Surely, FFC should aspire to improve. One suggestion in that regard is to replace the current DoF. This suggestion can be made while at the same time acknowledging that it may not happen. If one is dead certain that we are stuck with TK, this may of course seem as a pointless discussion. Myself, I tend not to be very certain on anything going on at the club most of the time since I acknowledge that I am almost certainly lacking vital insight into many important aspects of the inner workings at FFC.
True, but the main argument of keeping "Rafa Benetiz" and "Chris Houghton" is also that "it could be even worse", and I believe that the aim is not setting the bar too low.
Dont think TK gets any credit.We got promoted under his watch and will again . Like most clubs our signings have been mixed. Lets face we have no idea how the transfer procedure works at our club. If Tk is responsible for signing Seri because of his title then he is also responsible for signing target and Mitrovic. some of the poison thrown TKs way on here has been extremely annoying ,repetitive and ridiculous. More or less put me off posting on here to boot.
Quote from: colinwhite on June 25, 2019, 10:01:18 AM
Dont think TK gets any credit.We got promoted under his watch and will again . Like most clubs our signings have been mixed. Lets face we have no idea how the transfer procedure works at our club. If Tk is responsible for signing Seri because of his title then he is also responsible for signing target and Mitrovic. some of the poison thrown TKs way on here has been extremely annoying ,repetitive and ridiculous. More or less put me off posting on here to boot.
There are poisons that harm you and poisons that heal you, you just have to know which is which and the required dosages. If TK was responsible for promotion (which I don't think he was as my postings on Jokanovic should reveal) then he was responsible for the mediocre recruitment over a good few seasons that ultimately stultified Jokanovic's miracle work. I took a break from posting on here because of 'in crowd' nonsense posted about certain views which can get tedious after a while, but then I got wise counsel and decided to hammer home my points with evidence and mercilessly. Targett was loaned with no buy option - mistake or good recruitment practice? You pays your money ....
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 09:48:05 AM
Quote from: Sting of the North on June 25, 2019, 09:19:17 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 08:24:54 AM
Yes, Tony Khan was responsible for obtaining the money and wasting the money on Sigurdsson, Jozabed, Kebano, Fonte, Kamara, Anguissa and Seri. So, another DoF would have to do better for 60m than Fabri, Christie, Bryan, Odoi, Mawson, McDonald, Jonasen, Vietto, Atyie and Mitrovoic. The Top 20% of DoF could do better than that with 60m, but most DoFs wouldn't. I am certain we won't get the top 20% of DoFs, they probably won't apply, but if they do they won't get selected.
And, you may have noticed we probable have one of the worst selection committees for selecting a new DoF so don't expect a quality DoF replacement. If Fulham ever get to Newcastle position, our owners unlike Mike Ashley have enough available free cash flow (i.e. money) to get to the next level including the Europa League.
If the main argument of keeping someone in a particular position is that "it could be even worse", then I believe that the aim is set too low. Surely, FFC should aspire to improve. One suggestion in that regard is to replace the current DoF. This suggestion can be made while at the same time acknowledging that it may not happen. If one is dead certain that we are stuck with TK, this may of course seem as a pointless discussion. Myself, I tend not to be very certain on anything going on at the club most of the time since I acknowledge that I am almost certainly lacking vital insight into many important aspects of the inner workings at FFC.
True, but the main argument of keeping "Rafa Benetiz" and "Chris Houghton" is also that "it could be even worse", and I believe that the aim is not setting the bar too low.
No. Notwithstanding the fact that they are not DoFs, surely the main arguments of keeping Rafa Benitez would be that he has done a very good job on a comparatively tight budget and that he has also proved historically to be a successful manager. The main argument to keep Chris Hughton was likely that he had shown that he could make Brighton perform above expectations. Thus, the main arguments would be that they have both performed well over time. In Hughton's case, he seemed to have stagnated and thus upper management saw an opportunity to improve.
In short, I believe that you are 100 % wrong if you think that the main arguments for keeping Benitez and Hughton for as long as they did were that it could have been even worse.
Quote from: toshes mate on June 25, 2019, 10:19:19 AM
Quote from: colinwhite on June 25, 2019, 10:01:18 AM
Dont think TK gets any credit.We got promoted under his watch and will again . Like most clubs our signings have been mixed. Lets face we have no idea how the transfer procedure works at our club. If Tk is responsible for signing Seri because of his title then he is also responsible for signing target and Mitrovic. some of the poison thrown TKs way on here has been extremely annoying ,repetitive and ridiculous. More or less put me off posting on here to boot.
There are poisons that harm you and poisons that heal you, you just have to know which is which and the required dosages. If TK was responsible for promotion (which I don't think he was as my postings on Jokanovic should reveal) then he was responsible for the mediocre recruitment over a good few seasons that ultimately stultified Jokanovic's miracle work. I took a break from posting on here because of 'in crowd' nonsense posted about certain views which can get tedious after a while, but then I got wise counsel and decided to hammer home my points with evidence and mercilessly. Targett was loaned with no buy option - mistake or good recruitment practice? You pays your money ....
Southampton didn't want to sell Targett but wanted to see how he would perform, he was 3rd in the pecking order at the time and coming back from injury so from their perspective it was sensible to give no option to buy. We were desperate for a LB to allow Sess to play further forward, and if we didn't get promoted (as with Mitro) then we wouldn't sign him anyway.
Quote from: snarks on June 25, 2019, 11:12:43 AM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 25, 2019, 10:19:19 AM
Quote from: colinwhite on June 25, 2019, 10:01:18 AM
Dont think TK gets any credit.We got promoted under his watch and will again . Like most clubs our signings have been mixed. Lets face we have no idea how the transfer procedure works at our club. If Tk is responsible for signing Seri because of his title then he is also responsible for signing target and Mitrovic. some of the poison thrown TKs way on here has been extremely annoying ,repetitive and ridiculous. More or less put me off posting on here to boot.
There are poisons that harm you and poisons that heal you, you just have to know which is which and the required dosages. If TK was responsible for promotion (which I don't think he was as my postings on Jokanovic should reveal) then he was responsible for the mediocre recruitment over a good few seasons that ultimately stultified Jokanovic's miracle work. I took a break from posting on here because of 'in crowd' nonsense posted about certain views which can get tedious after a while, but then I got wise counsel and decided to hammer home my points with evidence and mercilessly. Targett was loaned with no buy option - mistake or good recruitment practice? You pays your money ....
Southampton didn't want to sell Targett but wanted to see how he would perform, he was 3rd in the pecking order at the time and coming back from injury so from their perspective it was sensible to give no option to buy. We were desperate for a LB to allow Sess to play further forward, and if we didn't get promoted (as with Mitro) then we wouldn't sign him anyway.
You do not have, and cannot have, any credible evidence of what was or wasn't on the table at the time of any FFC dealing. The left back problem was caused by the release of Malone and a failure to cover it by purchasing decent cover (supposedly RS would be left back despite SJ's preference to play him further forward). Do these guys actually talk to each other? These mistakes led to the RS controversy with SJ playing him 'out of position' which came to a head just before the start of 'the run'. Do you remember all the anger post Brentford away? A left back should have been found before Malone was sold. In similar vein the Fredericks issue was a recruitment failing to include an extension clause in his contract. Those are mistakes that should have been eradicated from our recruitment team a long, long time ago.
These mistakes do not get dealt with. Is that because we do not have a fit for purpose senior executive tier at FFC? I'd say the answer is more than likely that there is a serious communications issue at the Club which reveals itself every time we get into apparent trouble.
Tony Khan is similar to most in that he has recruited some very good players and some poor players. He has probably overpaid for some but who can say these days what a player is worth ? The top clubs are spending almost as much as Fulham's total recruitment spend last summer on just one player !
I would much prefer to talk about what we will have next than what happened in past years. Us fans speculate on what might have happened but in truth we know very little of the detail. It's a bit like politics, you take a position and often stick to it without knowing much detail, then argue your corner, again with little proper background knowledge.
I have long argued for Fulham to be far more open and transparent to the fan base and I congratulate Fulhamish and Tony for doing this interview. Let's hope it reveals some positive messages and gives us all optimism for the season ahead.
Quote from: toshes mate on June 25, 2019, 11:29:02 AM
Quote from: snarks on June 25, 2019, 11:12:43 AM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 25, 2019, 10:19:19 AM
Quote from: colinwhite on June 25, 2019, 10:01:18 AM
Dont think TK gets any credit.We got promoted under his watch and will again . Like most clubs our signings have been mixed. Lets face we have no idea how the transfer procedure works at our club. If Tk is responsible for signing Seri because of his title then he is also responsible for signing target and Mitrovic. some of the poison thrown TKs way on here has been extremely annoying ,repetitive and ridiculous. More or less put me off posting on here to boot.
There are poisons that harm you and poisons that heal you, you just have to know which is which and the required dosages. If TK was responsible for promotion (which I don't think he was as my postings on Jokanovic should reveal) then he was responsible for the mediocre recruitment over a good few seasons that ultimately stultified Jokanovic's miracle work. I took a break from posting on here because of 'in crowd' nonsense posted about certain views which can get tedious after a while, but then I got wise counsel and decided to hammer home my points with evidence and mercilessly. Targett was loaned with no buy option - mistake or good recruitment practice? You pays your money ....
Southampton didn't want to sell Targett but wanted to see how he would perform, he was 3rd in the pecking order at the time and coming back from injury so from their perspective it was sensible to give no option to buy. We were desperate for a LB to allow Sess to play further forward, and if we didn't get promoted (as with Mitro) then we wouldn't sign him anyway.
You do not have, and cannot have, any credible evidence of what was or wasn't on the table at the time of any FFC dealing. The left back problem was caused by the release of Malone and a failure to cover it by purchasing decent cover (supposedly RS would be left back despite SJ's preference to play him further forward). Do these guys actually talk to each other? These mistakes led to the RS controversy with SJ playing him 'out of position' which came to a head just before the start of 'the run'. Do you remember all the anger post Brentford away? A left back should have been found before Malone was sold. In similar vein the Fredericks issue was a recruitment failing to include an extension clause in his contract. Those are mistakes that should have been eradicated from our recruitment team a long, long time ago.
These mistakes do not get dealt with. Is that because we do not have a fit for purpose senior executive tier at FFC? I'd say the answer is more than likely that there is a serious communications issue at the Club which reveals itself every time we get into apparent trouble.
Depends what you call credible evidence, no I didn't see the agreement or speak to anyone directly involved in the negotiations, did speak to several people at Southampton about it tho'.
I wasn't talking about the why and wherefores of why we needed Targett, just talking about his loan. Similarly to your comment to me, you cannot possibly have any credible evidence as to what was put to Fredricks during contract negotiations and whether he would have signed with an extra year option. Much as you accuse me of doing, you're basing a lot on guesswork and what you perceive as failings.
Still don't want to argue about this, as it's fairly pointless, it's in the past, just hope lessons have been learnt going forward
Forgive my ignorance/laziness/bit of both, but how does one go about accessing said interview?
Quote from: snarks on June 25, 2019, 12:13:36 PM
Depends what you call credible evidence, no I didn't see the agreement or speak to anyone directly involved in the negotiations, did speak to several people at Southampton about it tho'.
I wasn't talking about the why and wherefores of why we needed Targett, just talking about his loan. Similarly to your comment to me, you cannot possibly have any credible evidence as to what was put to Fredricks during contract negotiations and whether he would have signed with an extra year option. Much as you accuse me of doing, you're basing a lot on guesswork and what you perceive as failings.
Still don't want to argue about this, as it's fairly pointless, it's in the past, just hope lessons have been learnt going forward
Your last sentence rather negates the whole point of history - the more you understand of the past the better you can do in the future. I don't see it as an argument but more of a discussion about individual perceptions which are based on a very loose version of reality. Like climate science you should never make declarations one way or another until you absolutely know. But here we are in a world where you are either a believer in anthropogenic global warming or you are a heretic. No middle road at all - isn't that bad science considering it is all based upon theories that have yet to be proven?
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 02:12:13 AM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 24, 2019, 11:54:51 PM
Mr Khan jnr would not get a job at any other top professional club and even if by some miracle he did, he would have been thrown out ages ago.
Yes he would get a job at another club, as Tony Khan is working for free, its pretty easy to get a job at zero wages and most non-profit jobs get a fancy title like "Director of Football". I also think many other Championship Clubs would let him buy players as he was probably the only person able to source money for new players. Many clubs in Championship failed to source money last season, with only ten championship clubs having net transfer budgets over £4m (with only six of the ten over £10m) and nine clubs even had negative transfer budgets.
I have no doubt a DOF that works for free, that can source £10m+ every season would get a job at most Championship Clubs. Other clubs are surely jealous.
With no disrespect intend at all... I do not begin to understand what you are saying. I would do the job for nothing and nobody would employ me either. He has no talent or experience, all he has is his dad's money and lineage. Did I really have to say in words of one syllable, imagine TK had never done the job before, and did not have access to his dad's funds, I thought that was self evidently implied.
The ability to source money is down to hios dad not down to his ability which he has spectacularly not shown any of.
If he didn't have daddy behind him he wouldn't be in the job anywhere else.
Quote from: ALG01 on June 25, 2019, 01:04:09 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 02:12:13 AM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 24, 2019, 11:54:51 PM
Mr Khan jnr would not get a job at any other top professional club and even if by some miracle he did, he would have been thrown out ages ago.
Yes he would get a job at another club, as Tony Khan is working for free, its pretty easy to get a job at zero wages and most non-profit jobs get a fancy title like "Director of Football". I also think many other Championship Clubs would let him buy players as he was probably the only person able to source money for new players. Many clubs in Championship failed to source money last season, with only ten championship clubs having net transfer budgets over £4m (with only six of the ten over £10m) and nine clubs even had negative transfer budgets.
I have no doubt a DOF that works for free, that can source £10m+ every season would get a job at most Championship Clubs. Other clubs are surely jealous.
With no disrespect intend at all... I do not begin to understand what you are saying. I would do the job for nothing and nobody would employ me either. He has no talent or experience, all he has is his dad's money and lineage. Did I really have to say in words of one syllable, imagine TK had never done the job before, and did not have access to his dad's funds, I thought that was self evidently implied.
The ability to source money is down to hios dad not down to his ability which he has spectacularly not shown any of.
I believe Tony Khan has the ability to source money from Fulham's owner better than other DoF. The ability to source money is Best Prediictor of DoF success. Even if Shahid Khan wasn't the owner, I have little doubt about Tony Khan's ability to source money probable from his family.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 03:40:31 PM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 25, 2019, 01:04:09 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 02:12:13 AM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 24, 2019, 11:54:51 PM
Mr Khan jnr would not get a job at any other top professional club and even if by some miracle he did, he would have been thrown out ages ago.
Yes he would get a job at another club, as Tony Khan is working for free, its pretty easy to get a job at zero wages and most non-profit jobs get a fancy title like "Director of Football". I also think many other Championship Clubs would let him buy players as he was probably the only person able to source money for new players. Many clubs in Championship failed to source money last season, with only ten championship clubs having net transfer budgets over £4m (with only six of the ten over £10m) and nine clubs even had negative transfer budgets.
I have no doubt a DOF that works for free, that can source £10m+ every season would get a job at most Championship Clubs. Other clubs are surely jealous.
With no disrespect intend at all... I do not begin to understand what you are saying. I would do the job for nothing and nobody would employ me either. He has no talent or experience, all he has is his dad's money and lineage. Did I really have to say in words of one syllable, imagine TK had never done the job before, and did not have access to his dad's funds, I thought that was self evidently implied.
The ability to source money is down to hios dad not down to his ability which he has spectacularly not shown any of.
I believe Tony Khan has the ability to source money from Fulham's owner better than other DoF. The ability to source money is Best Prediictor of DoF success. Even if Shahid Khan wasn't the owner, I have little doubt about Tony Khan's ability to source money probable from his family.
So what your saying is if he did leave Fulham and, somehow, got a job as DOF at, let's say Blackburn Rovers, he'd be able to source money from his family for players there.
Which member of the family will give him that money?
Quote from: ByTheRiver on June 25, 2019, 12:28:40 PM
Forgive my ignorance/laziness/bit of both, but how does one go about accessing said interview?
Ditto. Where and when will the interview be released please?
Quote from: Herbie on June 25, 2019, 06:17:18 PM
Quote from: ByTheRiver on June 25, 2019, 12:28:40 PM
Forgive my ignorance/laziness/bit of both, but how does one go about accessing said interview?
Ditto. Where and when will the interview be released please?
https://www.fulhamish.co.uk/podcast/
be there when it comes out
Quote from: Penfold on June 25, 2019, 03:47:27 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 03:40:31 PM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 25, 2019, 01:04:09 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 02:12:13 AM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 24, 2019, 11:54:51 PM
Mr Khan jnr would not get a job at any other top professional club and even if by some miracle he did, he would have been thrown out ages ago.
Yes he would get a job at another club, as Tony Khan is working for free, its pretty easy to get a job at zero wages and most non-profit jobs get a fancy title like "Director of Football". I also think many other Championship Clubs would let him buy players as he was probably the only person able to source money for new players. Many clubs in Championship failed to source money last season, with only ten championship clubs having net transfer budgets over £4m (with only six of the ten over £10m) and nine clubs even had negative transfer budgets.
I have no doubt a DOF that works for free, that can source £10m+ every season would get a job at most Championship Clubs. Other clubs are surely jealous.
With no disrespect intend at all... I do not begin to understand what you are saying. I would do the job for nothing and nobody would employ me either. He has no talent or experience, all he has is his dad's money and lineage. Did I really have to say in words of one syllable, imagine TK had never done the job before, and did not have access to his dad's funds, I thought that was self evidently implied.
The ability to source money is down to hios dad not down to his ability which he has spectacularly not shown any of.
I believe Tony Khan has the ability to source money from Fulham's owner better than other DoF. The ability to source money is Best Prediictor of DoF success. Even if Shahid Khan wasn't the owner, I have little doubt about Tony Khan's ability to source money probable from his family.
So what your saying is if he did leave Fulham and, somehow, got a job as DOF at, let's say Blackburn Rovers, he'd be able to source money from his family for players there.
Which member of the family will give him that money?
His father so what. And if FFP was scrapped, he'd probably give his son enough money to buy Neymar. I'm ok with that.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 26, 2019, 02:58:48 AM
Quote from: Penfold on June 25, 2019, 03:47:27 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 03:40:31 PM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 25, 2019, 01:04:09 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 02:12:13 AM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 24, 2019, 11:54:51 PM
Mr Khan jnr would not get a job at any other top professional club and even if by some miracle he did, he would have been thrown out ages ago.
Yes he would get a job at another club, as Tony Khan is working for free, its pretty easy to get a job at zero wages and most non-profit jobs get a fancy title like "Director of Football". I also think many other Championship Clubs would let him buy players as he was probably the only person able to source money for new players. Many clubs in Championship failed to source money last season, with only ten championship clubs having net transfer budgets over £4m (with only six of the ten over £10m) and nine clubs even had negative transfer budgets.
I have no doubt a DOF that works for free, that can source £10m+ every season would get a job at most Championship Clubs. Other clubs are surely jealous.
With no disrespect intend at all... I do not begin to understand what you are saying. I would do the job for nothing and nobody would employ me either. He has no talent or experience, all he has is his dad's money and lineage. Did I really have to say in words of one syllable, imagine TK had never done the job before, and did not have access to his dad's funds, I thought that was self evidently implied.
The ability to source money is down to hios dad not down to his ability which he has spectacularly not shown any of.
I believe Tony Khan has the ability to source money from Fulham's owner better than other DoF. The ability to source money is Best Prediictor of DoF success. Even if Shahid Khan wasn't the owner, I have little doubt about Tony Khan's ability to source money probable from his family.
So what your saying is if he did leave Fulham and, somehow, got a job as DOF at, let's say Blackburn Rovers, he'd be able to source money from his family for players there.
Which member of the family will give him that money?
His father so what. And if FFP was scrapped, he'd probably give his son enough money to buy Neymar. I'm ok with that.
Sorry but what planet are you on?
Quote from: Twig on June 26, 2019, 05:50:36 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 26, 2019, 02:58:48 AM
Quote from: Penfold on June 25, 2019, 03:47:27 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 03:40:31 PM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 25, 2019, 01:04:09 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 02:12:13 AM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 24, 2019, 11:54:51 PM
Mr Khan jnr would not get a job at any other top professional club and even if by some miracle he did, he would have been thrown out ages ago.
Yes he would get a job at another club, as Tony Khan is working for free, its pretty easy to get a job at zero wages and most non-profit jobs get a fancy title like "Director of Football". I also think many other Championship Clubs would let him buy players as he was probably the only person able to source money for new players. Many clubs in Championship failed to source money last season, with only ten championship clubs having net transfer budgets over £4m (with only six of the ten over £10m) and nine clubs even had negative transfer budgets.
I have no doubt a DOF that works for free, that can source £10m+ every season would get a job at most Championship Clubs. Other clubs are surely jealous.
With no disrespect intend at all... I do not begin to understand what you are saying. I would do the job for nothing and nobody would employ me either. He has no talent or experience, all he has is his dad's money and lineage. Did I really have to say in words of one syllable, imagine TK had never done the job before, and did not have access to his dad's funds, I thought that was self evidently implied.
The ability to source money is down to hios dad not down to his ability which he has spectacularly not shown any of.
I believe Tony Khan has the ability to source money from Fulham's owner better than other DoF. The ability to source money is Best Prediictor of DoF success. Even if Shahid Khan wasn't the owner, I have little doubt about Tony Khan's ability to source money probable from his family.
So what your saying is if he did leave Fulham and, somehow, got a job as DOF at, let's say Blackburn Rovers, he'd be able to source money from his family for players there.
Which member of the family will give him that money?
His father so what. And if FFP was scrapped, he'd probably give his son enough money to buy Neymar. I'm ok with that.
Sorry but what planet are you on?
Planet ' Funny Farm ' it's been confirmed by somebody wearing a white coat.
Available now
Gonna rabble as I listen for those unable to listen this morning :
Scott Parker only manager who has been actively involved in transfer "round tables" with scouts and data team, others weren't interested.
Most of what you read is garbage re transfers.
Were very close to bringing Dwight Gayle in summer of our promotion season.
Saints wanted 20m for Targett, probably would have got him had we not got Bryan 24hrs earlier.
TK wants/plans on AK47 being in the squad come start of the season. Squad agrees.
Andreas Pereira ticked both boxes but we got StefJo and Piazon for the fee that United wanted for the loan
TK doing everything to keep Mitro, Mitro happy here.
Quote from: Twig on June 26, 2019, 05:50:36 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 26, 2019, 02:58:48 AM
Quote from: Penfold on June 25, 2019, 03:47:27 PM
So what your saying is if he did leave Fulham and, somehow, got a job as DOF at, let's say Blackburn Rovers, he'd be able to source money from his family for players there.
Which member of the family will give him that money?
His father so what. And if FFP was scrapped, he'd probably give his son enough money to buy Neymar. I'm ok with that.
Sorry but what planet are you on?
I am on the planet where the most important thing in professional football is money and the ability to access it.
I live on a planet, where people with rich fathers have more opportunities to access funding those that don't.
Quote from: Herbie on June 25, 2019, 06:17:18 PM
Quote from: ByTheRiver on June 25, 2019, 12:28:40 PM
Forgive my ignorance/laziness/bit of both, but how does one go about accessing said interview?
Ditto. Where and when will the interview be released please?
Next months edition of the magazine
"Wrestling for the Over 80's".
Tony Khan says "uh" and "uhm" more than any other executive I've heard speak. It's kinda off-putting to hear.
Liked what he said about Mitro and AK47. I'm assuming he's waiting to see what happens with Ryan. Spoke highly of Stefjo.
Plans to loan out some younger players to lower leagues now that he has a way to track their data.
And I already know that almost 75% of transfer noise is nothing more. For the life of me I don't get why football fans feed into it.
Sent from my CMR-W19 using Tapatalk
Was good interview I thought.. Would recommend Statto / others who always go on about us doing business late watch as he talks about why (although not ideal) it can sometimes work out beneficial to do business later.
Quote from: @jolslover on June 26, 2019, 07:54:39 AM
Was good interview I thought.. Would recommend Statto / others who always go on about us doing business late watch as he talks about why (although not ideal) it can sometimes work out beneficial to do business later.
Not when you waste 30 million on last day,and also sign a donkey from Liverpool and one from Scandinavia,who hardly kicked a ball for us.😵
Quote from: colinwhite on June 25, 2019, 10:01:18 AM
Dont think TK gets any credit.We got promoted under his watch and will again . Like most clubs our signings have been mixed. Lets face we have no idea how the transfer procedure works at our club. If Tk is responsible for signing Seri because of his title then he is also responsible for signing target and Mitrovic. some of the poison thrown TKs way on here has been extremely annoying ,repetitive and ridiculous. More or less put me off posting on here to boot.
completely agree tbf but it's not an argument worth having because people can, do, and will always see things in different ways.
I really don't have it in me to listen - complete burnout after last season. Can't believe the season is coming around so quickly.
For those asking about how to listen:
https://www.fulhamish.co.uk/podcast/2019-06-26-fulhamish-meets-tony-khan/
Forget all of the talk, if we are top of the table after six matches T Khan and Scott Parker will again be popular.
Halfway through - the most interesting things not mentioned so far above is that:
1. Stats model also implies a value for players - and that informs how keen they are and how much to bid.
2. The Scouting report also looks at character - and he says that Mitro and StefJo were known to be difficult but the club judged it worth the risk (and were proven right)
Interestingly Ryan Sessegnon doesn't get a mention throughout, not even a "we would love him to stay and sign a new contract" type of line,
Tough going listening at times, and maybe should have ended half an hour earlier.
I enjoyed listening to it - thank you for the link
Well, IMO, there was little material in that podcast to know what to believe about TK.
'Collaboration' says TK, and 'SP is the first coach wanting to join in'. And yet we know SJ had scouted players prior to his first full season here, seemed keen to get talent in but ended up saying he was not involved in recruitment. Did he feel the meetings watching videos, looking at data, and scouting players were 'a waste of his time for some reason', and if he did, does TK know why that was the case. Sorry TK but your statements are pretty unconvincing without you giving a lot more detailed evidence as to why his involvement wasn't there. You were his boss for pity sakes.
TK says he brought in his new system in summer 2016 could that have been the reason why SJ never got a 'taste' for the 'collaborative' approach because TK was too focused on himself and his system?
There are too many inconsistencies in what TK says (e.g. 'stick together in the good or bad' – Slavisa would love that one) to convince me that he is anything other than an ego looking for approval. Yes, there is something he can work with. When he talks about missing his 'friend's' important events, there is, beneath those insecurities he has about himself, things that he can work with to make himself a better businessman, but I remain unsure he knows how to do that.
I am really unsure that this podcast tells us anymore about the real TK than he wants us to believe. The other TK is the stuff that he himself has, in an unguarded moment, revealed on twitter etc., which he has not been required to explain to us. A public relations exercise and nothing more.
Well, I enjoyed it. I think he's a decent guy. I think we will go up
Enjoying my summer but looking forward to start of season
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 03:40:31 PM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 25, 2019, 01:04:09 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 02:12:13 AM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 24, 2019, 11:54:51 PM
Mr Khan jnr would not get a job at any other top professional club and even if by some miracle he did, he would have been thrown out ages ago.
Yes he would get a job at another club, as Tony Khan is working for free, its pretty easy to get a job at zero wages and most non-profit jobs get a fancy title like "Director of Football". I also think many other Championship Clubs would let him buy players as he was probably the only person able to source money for new players. Many clubs in Championship failed to source money last season, with only ten championship clubs having net transfer budgets over £4m (with only six of the ten over £10m) and nine clubs even had negative transfer budgets.
I have no doubt a DOF that works for free, that can source £10m+ every season would get a job at most Championship Clubs. Other clubs are surely jealous.
With no disrespect intend at all... I do not begin to understand what you are saying. I would do the job for nothing and nobody would employ me either. He has no talent or experience, all he has is his dad's money and lineage. Did I really have to say in words of one syllable, imagine TK had never done the job before, and did not have access to his dad's funds, I thought that was self evidently implied.
The ability to source money is down to hios dad not down to his ability which he has spectacularly not shown any of.
I believe Tony Khan has the ability to source money from Fulham's owner better than other DoF. The ability to source money is Best Prediictor of DoF success. Even if Shahid Khan wasn't the owner, I have little doubt about Tony Khan's ability to source money probable from his family.
I continue to be confounded by your words which make no sense in response to my comment. I have said without his dad's money, nobody would emplioy him in football...and you have said they would employ him because he has access to his dad's money.
I am talking about his ability not his parentage.
You are trying to make a point that does not address anything I have said.
So let me try a question. assume TK's dad was broke, i.e. has no vast cash reserve... would TK be a good DoF based on his track record? Can you answer that OR, A young man walks into a top football club with no previous experience at all and barely any knowledge of football management, would you give him an interview let alone a job as DoF?....
and IMO the answer is no he would not be given an interview let alone the job and as a consequence we have a very nice young man that is a serial failure at the job. I heard the podcast and he is very nice, very committed, speak brilliantly and is a state of denial. He is not accepting his own many shortcomings and I was rather he was relieved of his duties.
He did confirm that he a totally inexperienced man and Slava a top manager had a diffrence of view on how things should be done and we got left with the inexcperienced end of the bargain.
He is basing next season on the team from two seasons ago BUThas forgotten we do not have the same manager and the manager was fundamental to the style and tunnel vision. That team was also built upon way too many loanees and Kmac and stefJo are likely to be a little less committed to the cause and as far as setri or anguissa are concerned I wouldn't like to bet my life on their value. withouit his dad TK would never get a job ianywhere in football management.
Quote from: Riversider on June 26, 2019, 10:48:11 AM
Interestingly Ryan Sessegnon doesn't get a mention throughout, not even a "we would love him to stay and sign a new contract" type of line,
Tough going listening at times, and maybe should have ended half an hour earlier.
I duly noticed that he wasn't even asked a direct question about RS, although Mitro, Johansen and Kamara got the full works. None of the questioning was in the least bit provocative, with serious attempts to follow up. Just like a bunch of mates not interested in upsetting each other. What did I expect, I know, but you live in hope as the saying goes?
Quote from: toshes mate on June 26, 2019, 12:46:58 PM
Quote from: Riversider on June 26, 2019, 10:48:11 AM
Interestingly Ryan Sessegnon doesn't get a mention throughout, not even a "we would love him to stay and sign a new contract" type of line,
Tough going listening at times, and maybe should have ended half an hour earlier.
I duly noticed that he wasn't even asked a direct question about RS, although Mitro, Johansen and Kamara got the full works. None of the questioning was in the least bit provocative, with serious attempts to follow up. Just like a bunch of mates not interested in upsetting each other. What did I expect, I know, but you live in hope as the saying goes?
Even I think it fair enough to let him speak for himself.
You can draw your conclusions based on what he said.
Personally I heard a nice young man, very committed, in total denial, clearly using the wrong approach but justifying his myriad of failures very well and not accepting he is our problem.
He needs to be removed from his duties for the common good. If his name was not Khan he would have been long gone.
Quote from: toshes mate on June 26, 2019, 12:46:58 PM
Quote from: Riversider on June 26, 2019, 10:48:11 AM
Interestingly Ryan Sessegnon doesn't get a mention throughout, not even a "we would love him to stay and sign a new contract" type of line,
Tough going listening at times, and maybe should have ended half an hour earlier.
I duly noticed that he wasn't even asked a direct question about RS, although Mitro, Johansen and Kamara got the full works. None of the questioning was in the least bit provocative, with serious attempts to follow up. Just like a bunch of mates not interested in upsetting each other. What did I expect, I know, but you live in hope as the saying goes?
It's quite conceivable that the interview was agreed provided that certain questions were not raised, Sess being an obvious one if my supposition is correct.
Quote from: Southcoastffc on June 26, 2019, 12:56:57 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 26, 2019, 12:46:58 PM
Quote from: Riversider on June 26, 2019, 10:48:11 AM
Interestingly Ryan Sessegnon doesn't get a mention throughout, not even a "we would love him to stay and sign a new contract" type of line,
Tough going listening at times, and maybe should have ended half an hour earlier.
I duly noticed that he wasn't even asked a direct question about RS, although Mitro, Johansen and Kamara got the full works. None of the questioning was in the least bit provocative, with serious attempts to follow up. Just like a bunch of mates not interested in upsetting each other. What did I expect, I know, but you live in hope as the saying goes?
It's quite conceivable that the interview was agreed provided that certain questions were not raised, Sess being an obvious one if my supposition is correct.
Which kind of negates the intended purpose of the interview, so the hype suggests - to get to know the 'real' TK. For sure there are no go areas in all forms of media, but there are ways of 'implying things' via what is not even asked or openly stated. Does TK not know that and should he have had 'a prepared answer' to assuage any misconceptions, or chosen not to was lyrical about his triumphs so as not to invite misconceptions? He is communicating to an audience that would love to know more about him and what makes him tick. He has missed a golden opportunity in my opinion.
Look, I heard the whole thing and but for his surname the man would be gone.
He didn't explain rico and fabri? If his stats based points based approach was any good those guys wouldn't have even been considered
Mawsom, signed injured and remained injured
Bryan, immediately injured suggesting he was signed injured
seri and anguissa, less said about that total waste of money
schurrle? a very poor addition, skillful but know for not beeing a proper team player
Christie was already sub standard and we did not get a proper right back
All of that was enough to get him the sack anywhere else. He was the reason we went down, him alone, it was obvious in August and certain in september that his incompetence sabotaged and took the pleasure out of last season. We never slightly looked like we would make a fight of it. A more enlightened and experienced transfer policy at half the price would have seen us survive. The bloke spent an hour in such a terrible state of denial, with clearly no idea about what to do for success this season. I remain in a stste of heightened pessimism for the season. i do not think we will be anywhere in contention for anything except a bottom half finish, most likely bottom six or eight. He gives me zero confidence.
Quote from: Southcoastffc on June 26, 2019, 12:56:57 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 26, 2019, 12:46:58 PM
Quote from: Riversider on June 26, 2019, 10:48:11 AM
Interestingly Ryan Sessegnon doesn't get a mention throughout, not even a "we would love him to stay and sign a new contract" type of line,
Tough going listening at times, and maybe should have ended half an hour earlier.
I duly noticed that he wasn't even asked a direct question about RS, although Mitro, Johansen and Kamara got the full works. None of the questioning was in the least bit provocative, with serious attempts to follow up. Just like a bunch of mates not interested in upsetting each other. What did I expect, I know, but you live in hope as the saying goes?
It's quite conceivable that the interview was agreed provided that certain questions were not raised, Sess being an obvious one if my supposition is correct.
But think it obvious he would love Ryan to stay but we all know he wants to move on to a top 6 club and if he says something that could be twisted by an agent push a move for a lower fee or no offer comes in and Ryan stays could put him in a bad light when what could happen is signs a new contract says he wants to get Fulham back up and looks a hero
Quote from: toshes mate on June 26, 2019, 01:05:08 PM
Quote from: Southcoastffc on June 26, 2019, 12:56:57 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 26, 2019, 12:46:58 PM
Quote from: Riversider on June 26, 2019, 10:48:11 AM
Interestingly Ryan Sessegnon doesn't get a mention throughout, not even a "we would love him to stay and sign a new contract" type of line,
Tough going listening at times, and maybe should have ended half an hour earlier.
I duly noticed that he wasn't even asked a direct question about RS, although Mitro, Johansen and Kamara got the full works. None of the questioning was in the least bit provocative, with serious attempts to follow up. Just like a bunch of mates not interested in upsetting each other. What did I expect, I know, but you live in hope as the saying goes?
It's quite conceivable that the interview was agreed provided that certain questions were not raised, Sess being an obvious one if my supposition is correct.
Which kind of negates the intended purpose of the interview, so the hype suggests - to get to know the 'real' TK. For sure there are no go areas in all forms of media, but there are ways of 'implying things' via what is not even asked or openly stated. Does TK not know that and should he have had 'a prepared answer' to assuage any misconceptions, or chosen not to was lyrical about his triumphs so as not to invite misconceptions? He is communicating to an audience that would love to know more about him and what makes him tick. He has missed a golden opportunity in my opinion.
Ah, there's the rub. Hype is best well-recognised as such.
I thought it was a good interview but I realise in being reasonably pro TK I am an apologist and worse.
Quote from: ALG01 on June 26, 2019, 01:11:41 PM
Look, I heard the whole thing and but for his surname the man would be gone.
He didn't explain rico and fabri? If his stats based points based approach was any good those guys wouldn't have even been considered
Mawsom, signed injured and remained injured
Bryan, immediately injured suggesting he was signed injured
seri and anguissa, less said about that total waste of money
schurrle? a very poor addition, skillful but know for not beeing a proper team player
Christie was already sub standard and we did not get a proper right back
All of that was enough to get him the sack anywhere else. He was the reason we went down, him alone, it was obvious in August and certain in september that his incompetence sabotaged and took the pleasure out of last season. We never slightly looked like we would make a fight of it. A more enlightened and experienced transfer policy at half the price would have seen us survive. The bloke spent an hour in such a terrible state of denial, with clearly no idea about what to do for success this season. I remain in a stste of heightened pessimism for the season. i do not think we will be anywhere in contention for anything except a bottom half finish, most likely bottom six or eight. He gives me zero confidence.
Not really the point here, but I thought Rico looked ok. Don't know how anyone can reallt judge Fabri one way or another. The question is of course why both? Further, he did address the right back position with TFM, who should have been good enough for a bottom half PL team. Also, Mawson didn't remain injured as far as we know, but got injured again. Think that Seri would have been decent in a better team, but didn't really seem up for the fight. Anguissa looked pretty good once he got a proper chance to get used to the team. Just to temper the hyperbole a little bit. I don't think TK had such a bad window as some try to make it out. He didn't have a very good one either unfortunately, which we would have needed.
And of course he was not the sole reason. Many players massively under performed. All managers (well maybe not SP given the circumstances), but both Slav and Ranieri did almost nothing right. I agree that TK (or maybe really SK) should bear the most blame, but it takes many people to make such a bad season.
Quote from: ALG01 on June 26, 2019, 12:50:43 PM
Even I think it fair enough to let [TK] speak for himself.
You can draw your conclusions based on what he said.
Personally I heard a nice young man, very committed, in total denial, clearly using the wrong approach but justifying his myriad of failures very well and not accepting he is our problem.
He needs to be removed from his duties for the common good. If his name was Khan he would have been long gone.
He could organise a podcast on the FFC website where he could indulge in a monologue series - 'Getting to Know the Real Tony'. The purpose of an interview is that the interviewer has control and is perceptive enough to ask questions that provoke proper answers and not a chance to say 'Hey guys, I am normally brilliant but last season I wasn't. Sorry about that. But don't worry we are going up next season because I have learned what others were doing wrong and with my brilliant stats system we are going places. It may be just a computer but, boy, it can do things you wouldn't imagine were possible.' (I paraphrase profusely.)
Quote from: ALG01 on June 26, 2019, 01:11:41 PM
Look, I heard the whole thing and but for his surname the man would be gone.
He didn't explain rico and fabri? If his stats based points based approach was any good those guys wouldn't have even been considered
Mawsom, signed injured and remained injured
Bryan, immediately injured suggesting he was signed injured
seri and anguissa, less said about that total waste of money
schurrle? a very poor addition, skillful but know for not beeing a proper team player
Christie was already sub standard and we did not get a proper right back
All of that was enough to get him the sack anywhere else. He was the reason we went down, him alone, it was obvious in August and certain in september that his incompetence sabotaged and took the pleasure out of last season. We never slightly looked like we would make a fight of it. A more enlightened and experienced transfer policy at half the price would have seen us survive. The bloke spent an hour in such a terrible state of denial, with clearly no idea about what to do for success this season. I remain in a stste of heightened pessimism for the season. i do not think we will be anywhere in contention for anything except a bottom half finish, most likely bottom six or eight. He gives me zero confidence.
The only problem with Rico was that he probably punched the ball too much, and wasn't an Englishman called Betinelli, same with Fabri who got vilified instantly for not saving a shot that Betts also wouldn't have saved. Mawson was a risk yes, but we're talking about a player who was on the cusp of the England team and was worth taking a risk on, sadly he had a reoccurrence of his injury. Bryan got injured on debut as a result of a coming together with another player, again not his or TK's fault. Seri and Anguissa were potentially worth less than what we paid, but I maintain that if we'd played a system similar to that from which they'd come, there'd have been no problems. If Anguissa is such a waste of money then how come he's already picking up MoTM awards at AFCON?
He was not the only problem and reason we went down, I refer you to Slav's suicidal tactics that lost him 6 games running, or Claudio being a clown and alienating players for no reason. If you don't like him fair enough, but stop letting your loathing get in the way of forming a balanced argument
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 03:40:31 PM
I believe Tony Khan has the ability to source money from Fulham's owner better than other DoF. The ability to source money is Best Prediictor of DoF success. Even if Shahid Khan wasn't the owner, I have little doubt about Tony Khan's ability to source money probable from his family.
Are you actually suggesting that Tony Khan can source money from his family to buy players for a club his father doesn't own? TK wouldn't get anywhere near a professional football club unless his father owned it. As for his father funding a club he doesn't own... :005: are you serious???
Thought the interview was fascinating and informative. Tony Khan came over very well and was as frustrated as the fans at our failure last season which he takes the responsibility for as far as his role went. We have been very good at blaming people when things don't work out while others are treated as saintly. We all share the frustration but to then go on to say would Tony Khan have the job if his Dad wasn't a Millionaire is like saying would his Dad be an owner if he wasn't a millionaire. Makes no sense. Before Tony Khan we blamed Mackintosh. We seem to need a pantomime villain. Fact is we failed last season because the recruitment was poor, the tactics were poor, the players were poor and some of the fans were quick to turn on the team and each other.
Life doesn't always work out and it is always somebody's fault. But it doesn't mean it was their fault alone. It seems the modern way of seeing things in politics or sport or Films. We have to have a Black and White answer and not everything is Black and White except the strip Fulham play in. Even that varies.
There would of been a few things off limits due to on going negotiations. The fella's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. We now know a bit more than we did. I'd like to see a regular podcast featuring a mix of people at the Club.
Quote from: Lighthouse on June 26, 2019, 02:01:34 PM
Thought the interview was fascinating and informative. Tony Khan came over very well and was as frustrated as the fans at our failure last season which he takes the responsibility for as far as his role went. We have been very good at blaming people when things don't work out while others are treated as saintly. We all share the frustration but to then go on to say would Tony Khan have the job if his Dad wasn't a Millionaire is like saying would his Dad be an owner if he wasn't a millionaire. Makes no sense. Before Tony Khan we blamed Mackintosh. We seem to need a pantomime villain. Fact is we failed last season because the recruitment was poor, the tactics were poor, the players were poor and some of the fans were quick to turn on the team and each other.
Life doesn't always work out and it is always somebody's fault. But it doesn't mean it was their fault alone. It seems the modern way of seeing things in politics or sport or Films. We have to have a Black and White answer and not everything is Black and White except the strip Fulham play in. Even that varies.
well said!
Quote from: Southcoastffc on June 26, 2019, 12:56:57 PM
It's quite conceivable that the interview was agreed provided that certain questions were not raised, Sess being an obvious one if my supposition is correct.
Quote from: I Ronic on June 26, 2019, 02:08:06 PM
There would of been a few things off limits due to on going negotiations.
Agree with these two comments, and think it absolutely normal and sensible if that's what he's done.
Unfortunately I won't be able to listen to it properly until this evening.
Quote from: ALG01 on June 26, 2019, 12:38:58 PM
He is basing next season on the team from two seasons ago BUThas forgotten we do not have the same manager and the manager was fundamental to the style and tunnel vision.
BOOM.
And here is the vital point that seemingly everyone (press and fans alike) is completely overlooking when weighing up our chances and/or talking about minimal changes to the squad. The manager and the system are VITAL.
The same players often perform very differently under different managers and systems. Just as a quick and really obvious example, Man Utd won the league in Ferguson's last season, how did they do the season after? Or after that? Or any period since really despite spending half a billion pounds?
Thought it was as good as it could have been. Few interesting things in there like the squad saying they wanted Kamara back next season, talking about Zambo, Mitrovic and Mawson in regard to next season etc. and it confirmed what I've thought all along that we needed to sort the outgoings before making any "big" signings.
I'm sure some people will take what they want to hear out of it, but overall I thought it was pretty good.
I don't know much about Tony Khan but have to say after listening to the podcast he genuinely seems to love the club and believes he has a role to play. I learned alot more than I thought I would. I think it's fair to say that generally Americans tend to be far more optimistic than us Brits and focus on what they got right. I think making the podcast was a risk but proved a good move. I like the guy.
Quote from: Sting of the North on June 26, 2019, 01:21:17 PM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 26, 2019, 01:11:41 PM
Look, I heard the whole thing and but for his surname the man would be gone.
He didn't explain rico and fabri? If his stats based points based approach was any good those guys wouldn't have even been considered
Mawsom, signed injured and remained injured
Bryan, immediately injured suggesting he was signed injured
seri and anguissa, less said about that total waste of money
schurrle? a very poor addition, skillful but know for not beeing a proper team player
Christie was already sub standard and we did not get a proper right back
All of that was enough to get him the sack anywhere else. He was the reason we went down, him alone, it was obvious in August and certain in september that his incompetence sabotaged and took the pleasure out of last season. We never slightly looked like we would make a fight of it. A more enlightened and experienced transfer policy at half the price would have seen us survive. The bloke spent an hour in such a terrible state of denial, with clearly no idea about what to do for success this season. I remain in a stste of heightened pessimism for the season. i do not think we will be anywhere in contention for anything except a bottom half finish, most likely bottom six or eight. He gives me zero confidence.
Not really the point here, but I thought Rico looked ok. Don't know how anyone can reallt judge Fabri one way or another. The question is of course why both? Further, he did address the right back position with TFM, who should have been good enough for a bottom half PL team. Also, Mawson didn't remain injured as far as we know, but got injured again. Think that Seri would have been decent in a better team, but didn't really seem up for the fight. Anguissa looked pretty good once he got a proper chance to get used to the team. Just to temper the hyperbole a little bit. I don't think TK had such a bad window as some try to make it out. He didn't have a very good one either unfortunately, which we would have needed.
And of course he was not the sole reason. Many players massively under performed. All managers (well maybe not SP given the circumstances), but both Slav and Ranieri did almost nothing right. I agree that TK (or maybe really SK) should bear the most blame, but it takes many people to make such a bad season.
I am copntent to agree to disagree on certain points. It is just that it seemed to me, no matter what he said in the interview the late arrival of players was a big factor and the wrong players to boot. The money could and should have been better spent and slavis should have been the front runner in selecton. TK clearly said they did not agree. IMO TK was the fundamental impediment to success that would have been striaght forward if we had a oproper experienced person in charge... that opinion is not changed from hearing what he said.
Re rico. I thought he was awful. A good shot stopper but his angles were poor and his inability to catch the ball ridiculousmin the english game..but I was pleased for him when he had a couple of more impressive displays near the end of the season.
Quote from: wormbridge on June 26, 2019, 02:16:29 PM
Quote from: Lighthouse on June 26, 2019, 02:01:34 PM
Thought the interview was fascinating and informative. Tony Khan came over very well and was as frustrated as the fans at our failure last season which he takes the responsibility for as far as his role went. We have been very good at blaming people when things don't work out while others are treated as saintly. We all share the frustration but to then go on to say would Tony Khan have the job if his Dad wasn't a Millionaire is like saying would his Dad be an owner if he wasn't a millionaire. Makes no sense. Before Tony Khan we blamed Mackintosh. We seem to need a pantomime villain. Fact is we failed last season because the recruitment was poor, the tactics were poor, the players were poor and some of the fans were quick to turn on the team and each other.
Life doesn't always work out and it is always somebody's fault. But it doesn't mean it was their fault alone. It seems the modern way of seeing things in politics or sport or Films. We have to have a Black and White answer and not everything is Black and White except the strip Fulham play in. Even that varies.
well said!
I have tought our approach to purchasing has been worse than third rate since the Khan's arrived. Based on misguided principles. TK who says it is his responsibility fouled up in each of thelast three seasons but more by luck and slav's brilliance we got over te line, but watching £100M flushed away was a negligent crime. Regardingg MackIntosh, he should have left the club years ago. In any other business the CEO would have been released for overseeing such incompetence and allowing it without taking action.
We continue to sign injured players who remain injured and buy players that are inappropriate. Our defence, or lack thereof last season was a disgrace. On this board in the close season we all, more or less agreed what we did nweed in terms of new blood, but that is not what we got. I am astonished anyone thionks I am picking on TK because we were relegated. I never thought he was any good and have always said so, Mr multiple signings and his, whatever it takes father, really need to get high paid professionals to run the team affairs properly.
Can someone tell me the exact starting date of TK as director of football?
I think we all agree that he's inexperienced.
I think we can also agree that he shouldn't buy injured players...which he's done too often in the past.
He's made mistakes...yes.
He also signed Mitrovic (as he stated in the interview)
He also extended Sess and his brothers contract
He also offered Slav an extension of his contract prior to the team getting promoted (can someone confirm this please)
He signed Ryan Babel who NO ONE on this forum would have picked (it was also obvious that in addition to having a horrible defense...Fulham needed someone besides Mitro and Schurrle scoring goals) and Ryan was arguably one of the best...if not the best player on Fulham's side for the last 10 games.
....
Now...I'm about to bring up someone that I KNOW I'm going to get a lot of slack for... but Tony Khan brought in Timothy Fosu Mensah on loan as a young, aggressive FB (I think he was 20 when he came to Fulham) who would have started more games at RB for Crystal Palace except he was unseated by the player that just got 50 million from Manchester United to be their starting RB.
And it has been posted several places on the internet...and myself before those post...Timothy Fosu Mensah was one of the few available right backs with EPL experience that was just as fast as Ryan Fredericks. And he'd played some really good games against the likes of Manchester City and Tottenham (before he'd turned 20)
Yes...last minute acquisition...but Tony Khan did his best to try and find a Ryan Fredericks replacement knowing full well that Cyrus Christie wasn't good enough.
He also brought in Chambers.
That's Mawson, Chambers and Timbo...who...based on their stats and some of the eyeball test...were good additions to a promoted championship side.
It failed miserably.
He knows it failed miserably.
The true test will be how long it takes for TK to learn from his mistakes and for Fulham to come back up.
I'll take the Khans as a pair before I give up on the two of them for an owner I don't know and a DOF that has more experience.
That might not be the case in 3 years, but for right now I'm ok with Tony Khan learning on the job.
By all accounts Tony Khan took over transfers fully in the summer of 2016. So every signing from Floyd Ayite onwards is "his".
Quote from: wheelerdeeler on June 26, 2019, 06:25:46 PM
By all accounts Tony Khan took over transfers fully in the summer of 2016. So every signing from Floyd Ayite onwards is "his".
Thanks
Lot's of ins and outs. Hits and misses. (https://www.football.london/fulham-fc/what-happened-40-signings-fulham-15440517)
Learning on the job...helped get the team promoted. He had to ok any of the new additions that helped get the team promoted...
I'm done slagging him off until I see how he handles adversity.
So, Tony Khan costs the club nothing and you get what you pay for, thanks for clearing this up.
Quote from: wheelerdeeler on June 26, 2019, 06:25:46 PM
By all accounts Tony Khan took over transfers fully in the summer of 2016. So every signing from Floyd Ayite onwards is "his".
Here's our spending versus points tally in every season since then, compared to our peers (the other six clubs closest to our final league position)
Is Tony Khan the antichrist? No
Is he a horrible person? No (albeit he comes across as arrogant, egotistical and naive IMO)
Are we worse than every other football club in the entire football league every season? No
Do we consistently perform poorly compared to most of our peer clubs? Yes
Also probably worth noting that of the clubs below us in these tables, Norwich and Middlesbrough both changed their head of recruitment at the end of the season in question
(https://i.postimg.cc/J0X4S2q6/1617.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/m2QgwKhh/1718.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Dzzf7Z6b/1819.jpg)
Never been a massive fan of Tony Khan but I enjoyed the interview and the one thing that I have taken from it is that we really do need him in his position as he has a lot more influence over Shahid Khan than any other Director of Football would have. It sounds like, if he wants something he gets it and that can only be a good thing.
He's certainly bought some time with me in this interview. Roll on August, we can all begin judging him again then. 049:gif COYW
He's just is in over his head. I run a business, it's not small and I made it. He runs the jags, our recruitment, and 5 other businesses. He can't do it. He should do better or hire me. Or you. I know more than he does about this club. I more just wish anyone of us could teach him.
The best in the biz leave their ego at the door Tony Khan.
Quote from: ALG01 on June 26, 2019, 12:38:58 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 03:40:31 PM
I believe Tony Khan has the ability to source money from Fulham's owner better than other DoF. The ability to source money is Best Prediictor of DoF success. Even if Shahid Khan wasn't the owner, I have little doubt about Tony Khan's ability to source money probable from his family.
So let me try a question. assume TK's dad was broke, i.e. has no vast cash reserve... would TK be a good DoF based on his track record?
Maybe, if Fulham's owner was broke, we would have to employ the cheapest DoF in world football, which is Tony Khan. More seriously of course, Tony Khan is DoF because of his access to his dads money so what. Privellege goes to rich sons that is not a secret, I doubt David Cameron and Boris Johnson would have been Prime Ministers, if their rich parents sent them to the poshiest school in the world (i.e Eton College).
Quote from: AnOldBrownie on June 26, 2019, 06:15:54 PM
He also signed Mitrovic (as he stated in the interview)
This one info here I heard from the podcast means EVERYTHING Tony said should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Yes, it is true that he signed him because all players signature for commitment have to finally go through him.
Although, Joka did tell the famous story of how he have;
* to get on Snapchat to touch base with Mitro
* worked hard in convincing the board before the signing and
* worked hard with Mitro after the signing to make sure his attitude is kept in check
Full story here >> https://www.friendsoffulham.com/forum/index.php?topic=63694.0
Usually stories can change after someone left an organisation or this world.... nobody refute this story while Joka was still around in Fulham:)
I don't think Tony Khan said anything that contradicts that? He basically said things to the effect of he was involved in the Mitrovic deal in the sense that he was the one who sanctioned the deal and convinced Shahid Khan to give Mitrovic whatever his wages were which were the biggest we'd ever offered in the Championship. He specifically mentioned "prior relationships" in regard to the Mitrovic deal which is pretty clearly the Jokanovic side of the deal.
Quote from: ..FOF.. on June 27, 2019, 01:59:49 AM
Quote from: AnOldBrownie on June 26, 2019, 06:15:54 PM
He also signed Mitrovic (as he stated in the interview)
This one info here I heard from the podcast means EVERYTHING Tony said should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Yes, it is true that he signed him because all players signature for commitment have to finally go through him.
Although, Joka did tell the famous story of how he have;
* to get on Snapchat to touch base with Mitro
* worked hard in convincing the board before the signing and
* worked hard with Mitro after the signing to make sure his attitude is kept in check
Full story here >> https://www.friendsoffulham.com/forum/index.php?topic=63694.0
Usually stories can change after someone left an organisation or this world.... nobody refute this story while Joka was still around in Fulham:)
The only point of disagreement between Slavisa's story and Tony Khan's story is who convinced the board. And, no one seems to dispute that Tony Khan was the first member of the board to be convinced to loan Mitrovoic and so surely both of them were trying to convince all the board members to loan Mitrovoic.
If Slavisa convinced Mitrovoic and Tony Khan, then Tony Khan convinced the rest of the board, then they are both telling the truth.
Tony khan is the owners son ,who is taking responsibility for his fathers money and investment . Get used to it . At least he seems to love the club and has the intention to fix things. It could be so much worse ,so get behind the club and Tony khan because he is going nowhere .All the negativity and moaning is just a waste of time,which has been extremely boring for quite some time.
Quote from: colinwhite on June 27, 2019, 05:51:27 AM
Tony khan is the owners son ,who is taking responsibility for his fathers money and investment . Get used to it . At least he seems to love the club and has the intention to fix things. It could be so much worse ,so get behind the club and Tony khan because he is going nowhere .All the negativity and moaning is just a waste of time,which has been extremely boring for quite some time.
I have to admit that I have found non comments from sycophants like you to be utterly boring.
Quote from: colinwhite on June 27, 2019, 05:51:27 AM
At least he seems to love the club
What is this view based on?
I'm sure he loves himself, and wants to succeed in his job
But what evidence is there of an altruistic love for the club?
In other words, what has he ever done that serves the club's interests but not his own?
Found it in me to listen. I feel worse than before. Arrogant and naïve don't make a good mixture.
Just washed over the multiple jobs aspect as though it hasn't already affected us. I wish the interviewers had been allowed free reign, or had been able to make logical retorts on many of his points where he evidenced his naivety, but appreciate they'd never have got the interview if they had done so.
I imagine a lot of people will think even less of him now, and the fanboys will continue to live with their blinkers on.
Quote from: colinwhite on June 27, 2019, 05:51:27 AM
Tony khan is the owners son ,who is taking responsibility for his fathers money and investment . Get used to it . At least he seems to love the club and has the intention to fix things. It could be so much worse ,so get behind the club and Tony khan because he is going nowhere .All the negativity and moaning is just a waste of time,which has been extremely boring for quite some time.
Doesn't love the club when there's college footballers to watch in Mobile, or the NFL draft party to be at in Tennessee, or a bloody wrestling event to attend in the States (NERD ALERT).
'Get used to it'. This is how fans end up with their clubs being run improperly. Hate this pathetic way of thinking.
I get the feeling from reading through the comments that a lot of you guys have not actually listened to the interview. You heard it for sure, but listened to it, that is a completely different story.
Quote from: Dr Quinzel on June 27, 2019, 08:50:56 AM
Found it in me to listen. I feel worse than before. Arrogant and naïve don't make a good mixture.
Just washed over the multiple jobs aspect as though it hasn't already affected us. I wish the interviewers had been allowed free reign, or had been able to make logical retorts on many of his points where he evidenced his naivety, but appreciate they'd never have got the interview if they had done so.
I imagine a lot of people will think even less of him now, and the fanboys will continue to live with their blinkers on.
But most of these jobs are the same analytics once the base programs are built its just feeding in info and looking at the result many a business person will sit on the broad of Directors of many companies and not have to be fully hands on. I doubt TK inputs all the data himself he will just look at the results at the end
Maybe we can just respect each others opinions without calling out "whiners" or "moaners" or "sycophants" or "fanboys". It would be nice if this forum could keep holding a higher standard than the average internet forum where people keep insulting each other. It is perfectly possible to disagree with someone without resorting to labeling them in a negative way. If one cannot find better arguments, maybe time to rethink?
Quote from: toshes mate on June 27, 2019, 09:22:26 AM
I get the feeling from reading through the comments that a lot of you guys have not actually listened to the interview. You heard it for sure, but listened to it, that is a completely different story.
It's almost like politics. People believe what they believe and interpret things through that lens.
Quote from: Sting of the North on June 27, 2019, 09:57:38 AM
Maybe we can just respect each others opinions without calling out "whiners" or "moaners" or "sycophants" or "fanboys". It would be nice if this forum could keep holding a higher standard than the average internet forum where people keep insulting each other. It is perfectly possible to disagree with someone without resorting to labeling them in a negative way. If one cannot find better arguments, maybe time to rethink?
yes, 100% We had someone on TiFF digging out Tony Khan for taking credit for Mitro when the interview clearly says that it was others who had done the groundwork. I pointed this out and got abuse. It's a very weird dynamic. Internet discussion, eh?
Quote from: Nero on June 27, 2019, 09:46:53 AM
Quote from: Dr Quinzel on June 27, 2019, 08:50:56 AM
Found it in me to listen. I feel worse than before. Arrogant and naïve don't make a good mixture.
Just washed over the multiple jobs aspect as though it hasn't already affected us. I wish the interviewers had been allowed free reign, or had been able to make logical retorts on many of his points where he evidenced his naivety, but appreciate they'd never have got the interview if they had done so.
I imagine a lot of people will think even less of him now, and the fanboys will continue to live with their blinkers on.
But most of these jobs are the same analytics once the base programs are built its just feeding in info and looking at the result many a business person will sit on the broad of Directors of many companies and not have to be fully hands on. I doubt TK inputs all the data himself he will just look at the results at the end
DoFO is more than just clicking go each day on a stats machine - a data analyst is a full time job, let alone DoFO.
Well ive been called afew things in my time but psycophant is a new one on me ! Either way uncalled for and out of order.
Quote from: Statto on June 26, 2019, 10:19:50 PM
Quote from: wheelerdeeler on June 26, 2019, 06:25:46 PM
By all accounts Tony Khan took over transfers fully in the summer of 2016. So every signing from Floyd Ayite onwards is "his".
Here's our spending versus points tally in every season since then, compared to our peers (the other six clubs closest to our final league position)
Is Tony Khan the antichrist? No
Is he a horrible person? No (albeit he comes across as arrogant, egotistical and naive IMO)
Are we worse than every other football club in the entire football league every season? No
Do we consistently perform poorly compared to most of our peer clubs? Yes
Also probably worth noting that of the clubs below us in these tables, Norwich and Middlesbrough both changed their head of recruitment at the end of the season in question
(https://i.postimg.cc/J0X4S2q6/1617.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/m2QgwKhh/1718.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Dzzf7Z6b/1819.jpg)
I don't know that you can just pluck points per million as any meaningful metric. Certainly financial outlay is important and certainly we're not going to be the most efficient, but there's a hell of a lot more to capture if going down this road, especially for the Premiership where we arrived with half a squad and had to catch up fast.
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 10:05:03 AM
Quote from: Sting of the North on June 27, 2019, 09:57:38 AM
Maybe we can just respect each others opinions without calling out "whiners" or "moaners" or "sycophants" or "fanboys". It would be nice if this forum could keep holding a higher standard than the average internet forum where people keep insulting each other. It is perfectly possible to disagree with someone without resorting to labeling them in a negative way. If one cannot find better arguments, maybe time to rethink?
yes, 100% We had someone on TiFF digging out Tony Khan for taking credit for Mitro when the interview clearly says that it was others who had done the groundwork. I pointed this out and got abuse. It's a very weird dynamic. Internet discussion, eh?
It's weird how it's always you that is on the receiving end.
Quote from: Dr Quinzel on June 27, 2019, 10:08:42 AM
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 10:05:03 AM
Quote from: Sting of the North on June 27, 2019, 09:57:38 AM
Maybe we can just respect each others opinions without calling out "whiners" or "moaners" or "sycophants" or "fanboys". It would be nice if this forum could keep holding a higher standard than the average internet forum where people keep insulting each other. It is perfectly possible to disagree with someone without resorting to labeling them in a negative way. If one cannot find better arguments, maybe time to rethink?
yes, 100% We had someone on TiFF digging out Tony Khan for taking credit for Mitro when the interview clearly says that it was others who had done the groundwork. I pointed this out and got abuse. It's a very weird dynamic. Internet discussion, eh?
It's weird how it's always you that is on the receiving end.
if that's sarcasm I'm always happy to learn how to conduct myself better!
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 10:08:31 AM
Quote from: Statto on June 26, 2019, 10:19:50 PM
Quote from: wheelerdeeler on June 26, 2019, 06:25:46 PM
By all accounts Tony Khan took over transfers fully in the summer of 2016. So every signing from Floyd Ayite onwards is "his".
Here's our spending versus points tally in every season since then, compared to our peers (the other six clubs closest to our final league position)
Is Tony Khan the antichrist? No
Is he a horrible person? No (albeit he comes across as arrogant, egotistical and naive IMO)
Are we worse than every other football club in the entire football league every season? No
Do we consistently perform poorly compared to most of our peer clubs? Yes
Also probably worth noting that of the clubs below us in these tables, Norwich and Middlesbrough both changed their head of recruitment at the end of the season in question
(https://i.postimg.cc/J0X4S2q6/1617.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/m2QgwKhh/1718.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Dzzf7Z6b/1819.jpg)
I don't know that you can just pluck points per million as any meaningful metric. Certainly financial outlay is important and certainly we're not going to be the most efficient, but there's a hell of a lot more to capture if going down this road, especially for the Premiership where we arrived with half a squad and had to catch up fast.
This is so arbitrary, almost as if someone is trying to find data to support a prexisting thought. Also this is completely ignoring the contracts and salaries, which are fixed over long periods of time. So are they included? if so do you back out contracts agreed before the season in question so its only new commitments? but that does not work as the success is due to all players, newly committed to or before. Is it net spend? as presumably you can spend more if you have more income? More fundamentally the squad is an ongoing work with costs embedded and value realizable through sales that changes over time.
Tony Khan, love him or hate him, has built as of today a squad with lots of sell on value, at a low average age, with lots of Championship and now Premiership experience. Who can argue we are not better off today than when the Khan's bought the team?
'Who can argue we are not better off today than when the Khan's bought the team?'
A quick look at the league we've spent most of their tenure in, and the two years they've had in the PL suggests there's a very easy argument to be made. Granted, they inherited a declining team run on a model I wouldn't prefer, but to suggest a team who had multiple seasons in Europe and 13 straight in the top flight is now better off after 2 relegations and 4 in the Championship seems odd to me.
In a nutshell those who see Fulham as a premiership club as they were under MAF when he sold it.
I should add I'm pro the Khans
Quote from: YoungsBitter on June 27, 2019, 10:50:31 AM
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 10:08:31 AM
I don't know that you can just pluck points per million as any meaningful metric. Certainly financial outlay is important and certainly we're not going to be the most efficient, but there's a hell of a lot more to capture if going down this road, especially for the Premiership where we arrived with half a squad and had to catch up fast.
This is so arbitrary, almost as if someone is trying to find data to support a prexisting thought. Also this is completely ignoring the contracts and salaries, which are fixed over long periods of time. So are they included? if so do you back out contracts agreed before the season in question so its only new commitments? but that does not work as the success is due to all players, newly committed to or before. Is it net spend? as presumably you can spend more if you have more income? More fundamentally the squad is an ongoing work with costs embedded and value realizable through sales that changes over time.
Tony Khan, love him or hate him, has built as of today a squad with lots of sell on value, at a low average age, with lots of Championship and now Premiership experience. Who can argue we are not better off today than when the Khan's bought the team?
I think you both make valid points about the imperfections of this analysis. The reality is just that neither I, nor evidently anyone else, has had the time thus far to go into a lot more detail.
However I object to the comments that this isn't "meaningful", or that it's "arbitrary" and "trying to find data to support a prexisting thought". If you've a better approach in mind that will reflect well on TK, by all means go ahead with that and post your findings.
That won't happen of course, because as is painfully clear to anyone who bothers to conduct any half-intelligent analysis of the data with a reasonable level of granularity, it will reflect poorly on TK. That's why the defences of TK on this forum invariably rely on cursory (at best) analyses and intuitive judgments.
So I entirely agree that looking at spending over 3 yrs instead of 1 yr, and taking into account wages and sale proceeds, would be ideal, if one had the time to do it. But is that suddenly going to show that, comparing financial outlay and success achieved, we're better run than peer clubs like Huddersfield, Cardiff, Norwich, Villa, Brighton, Burnley and Wolves? No.
And as I said on the rare occasions another club has done as poorly as us on those metrics, in most cases they've immediately overhauled their transfer staff and structure.
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 10:00:45 AM
People believe what they believe and interpret things through that lens.
I see this sort of comment a lot both in politics and debates about Tony Khan. Has it crossed your mind that perhaps the comment itself is your "belief" and "lens"? Perhaps the opposing arguments you dismiss as driven by entrenched belief, are actually based by objective reasoning, and you just can't accept that?
Quote from: Sting of the North on June 27, 2019, 09:57:38 AM
Maybe we can just respect each others opinions without calling out "whiners" or "moaners" or "sycophants" or "fanboys". It would be nice if this forum could keep holding a higher standard than the average internet forum where people keep insulting each other. It is perfectly possible to disagree with someone without resorting to labeling them in a negative way. If one cannot find better arguments, maybe time to rethink?
On the other hand colinwhite's use of 'psychophant' (above) is a real gem of a comment. I think it is case of if the mud sticks.
Fun drinking game. Down a shot everytime Tony says "Ummm..." and you'll be passed out before he mentions taking credit for the Mitro deal.
In all seriousness, Tony needs some decent mates or a reality check. With the Jags and Fulham, he's jumping through hoops for daddy. He works from morning to night , missing friends weddings, and if a friend wants to see him they have to come to his work.
All this trying to please daddy is pointless. If I was him I'd focus on the wrestling which he is powering on with , and have a bit of work life balance. Or even better, install Tony as owner, so his workload is lessened but his operation of analytics carries on .
In a few years Shahid will bow out, and Tony will get the sole keys to the cottage anyway.
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 10:00:45 AM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 27, 2019, 09:22:26 AM
I get the feeling from reading through the comments that a lot of you guys have not actually listened to the interview. You heard it for sure, but listened to it, that is a completely different story.
It's almost like politics. People believe what they believe and interpret things through that lens.
For sure we all do it either in the interests of proving we have open minds or it suits us to show we have minds totally made up. But listening is tough to do. It takes considerable energy, demands concentration, and requires using memory very efficiently. One hour (the length of the podcast) is getting close to kind of limit most 'normal' people have without a break. We are an easily distracted species that is prone to hearing something and wanting to pigeon hole the sound immediately rather than have our minds gently nurtured into understanding what we may have just heard.
Quote from: Statto on June 27, 2019, 11:51:59 AM
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 10:00:45 AM
People believe what they believe and interpret things through that lens.
I see this sort of comment a lot both in politics and debates about Tony Khan. Has it crossed your mind that perhaps the comment itself is your "belief" and "lens"? Perhaps the opposing arguments you dismiss as driven by entrenched belief, are actually based by objective reasoning, and you just can't accept that?
Well people are taking opposing things from the podcast despite all hearing the same words. And confirmation is a very well known bias that we're all prone to. So I don't think I'm saying anything too outlandish am I?
It's not a question of not accepting things. I can disagree, though, right? People all over the Fulham boards are allowed to insult Tony Khan and question his suitability for the role he has, but if someone like me thinks he's broadly on the right lines and doesn't deserve all the poo he gets, well then that seems to rub people up the wrong way.
Quote from: Newry FFC on June 27, 2019, 12:09:38 PM
In all seriousness, Tony needs some decent mates or a reality check. With the Jags and Fulham, he's jumping through hoops for daddy. He works from morning to night , missing friends weddings, and if a friend wants to see him they have to come to his work.
You echo my thoughts exactly because that is the time, and possibly the only time, IMHO, that Tony reveals to us the real him, and nothing but the true him. He is, by choice, immersed in his work and so what is it he is avoiding by so doing? I'd be interested to know that just as insight.
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 12:22:31 PM
Quote from: Statto on June 27, 2019, 11:51:59 AM
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 10:00:45 AM
People believe what they believe and interpret things through that lens.
I see this sort of comment a lot both in politics and debates about Tony Khan. Has it crossed your mind that perhaps the comment itself is your "belief" and "lens"? Perhaps the opposing arguments you dismiss as driven by entrenched belief, are actually based by objective reasoning, and you just can't accept that?
Well people are taking opposing things from the podcast despite all hearing the same words. And confirmation is a very well known bias that we're all prone to. So I don't think I'm saying anything too outlandish am I?
It's not a question of not accepting things. I can disagree, though, right? People all over the Fulham boards are allowed to insult Tony Khan and question his suitability for the role he has, but if someone like me thinks he's broadly on the right lines and doesn't deserve all the poo he gets, well then that seems to rub people up the wrong way.
If you're talking about specific statements that some people have clearly misinterpreted due to their own bias, then I entirely sympathise with you there.
But the comment you made is one I often hear used to make broader, unfair generalisations, eg "Group A only voted for B because of their entrenched, misguided belief in C"
For example, there's plenty of empirical data and other reasonable evidence to support the "People all over the Fulham boards [who] insult Tony Khan and question his suitability for the role he has", so if you were just to dismiss all those posts as "people believing what they want to believe", that would obviously be very wrong.
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 12:22:31 PM
Quote from: Statto on June 27, 2019, 11:51:59 AM
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 10:00:45 AM
People believe what they believe and interpret things through that lens.
I see this sort of comment a lot both in politics and debates about Tony Khan. Has it crossed your mind that perhaps the comment itself is your "belief" and "lens"? Perhaps the opposing arguments you dismiss as driven by entrenched belief, are actually based by objective reasoning, and you just can't accept that?
Well people are taking opposing things from the podcast despite all hearing the same words. And confirmation is a very well known bias that we're all prone to. So I don't think I'm saying anything too outlandish am I?
It's not a question of not accepting things. I can disagree, though, right? People all over the Fulham boards are allowed to insult Tony Khan and question his suitability for the role he has, but if someone like me thinks he's broadly on the right lines and doesn't deserve all the poo he gets, well then that seems to rub people up the wrong way.
You are quite correct. It could be called virtue signalling to those already in the camp we get shovelled into regardless of whether we still have an open mind but just wish to express ourselves at this moment in time.
Quote from: Statto on June 27, 2019, 12:40:51 PM
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 12:22:31 PM
Quote from: Statto on June 27, 2019, 11:51:59 AM
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 10:00:45 AM
People believe what they believe and interpret things through that lens.
I see this sort of comment a lot both in politics and debates about Tony Khan. Has it crossed your mind that perhaps the comment itself is your "belief" and "lens"? Perhaps the opposing arguments you dismiss as driven by entrenched belief, are actually based by objective reasoning, and you just can't accept that?
Well people are taking opposing things from the podcast despite all hearing the same words. And confirmation is a very well known bias that we're all prone to. So I don't think I'm saying anything too outlandish am I?
It's not a question of not accepting things. I can disagree, though, right? People all over the Fulham boards are allowed to insult Tony Khan and question his suitability for the role he has, but if someone like me thinks he's broadly on the right lines and doesn't deserve all the poo he gets, well then that seems to rub people up the wrong way.
If you're talking about specific statements that some people have clearly misinterpreted due to their own bias, then I entirely sympathise with you there.
But the comment you made is one I often hear used to make broader, unfair generalisations, eg "Group A only voted for B because of their entrenched, misguided belief in C"
For example, there's plenty of empirical data and other reasonable evidence to support the "People all over the Fulham boards [who] insult Tony Khan and question his suitability for the role he has", so if you were just to dismiss all those posts as "people believing what they want to believe", that would obviously be very wrong.
No sure, I don't disagree with your points, but there are people listening to this and banging on about how he is still trying to take all responsibility for Mitrovic, for example. Even with words that we can all agree on, people will interpret them in different ways. So one man's "he's arrogant and trying to take all the credit" might be another man's "well he gets so much criticism I'm not surprised he's trying to talk himself up somewhat"
All I'm saying is that people who very clearly didn't like Tony Khan before this don't seem to be changing their minds. Now that's fine and nobody's concern in many ways, but I would have thought that the podcast was helpful in giving people some insight into what goes on, and generally (this is my work hat) we find that the more people know about something, the better disposed towards it they are. So based on this, you might think that Khan opening up and talking in some depth would make people more positive.
But that doesn't seem to be happening. You can tell from the podcast that he feels he's not really been given a fair shake of the stick and is slightly confused by this. I guess I'm of the same mind.
Quote from: Statto on June 27, 2019, 12:40:51 PM
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 12:22:31 PM
Quote from: Statto on June 27, 2019, 11:51:59 AM
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 10:00:45 AM
People believe what they believe and interpret things through that lens.
I see this sort of comment a lot both in politics and debates about Tony Khan. Has it crossed your mind that perhaps the comment itself is your "belief" and "lens"? Perhaps the opposing arguments you dismiss as driven by entrenched belief, are actually based by objective reasoning, and you just can't accept that?
Well people are taking opposing things from the podcast despite all hearing the same words. And confirmation is a very well known bias that we're all prone to. So I don't think I'm saying anything too outlandish am I?
It's not a question of not accepting things. I can disagree, though, right? People all over the Fulham boards are allowed to insult Tony Khan and question his suitability for the role he has, but if someone like me thinks he's broadly on the right lines and doesn't deserve all the poo he gets, well then that seems to rub people up the wrong way.
If you're talking about specific statements that some people have clearly misinterpreted due to their own bias, then I entirely sympathise with you there.
But the comment you made is one I often hear used to make broader, unfair generalisations, eg "Group A only voted for B because of their entrenched, misguided belief in C"
For example, there's plenty of empirical data and other reasonable evidence to support the "People all over the Fulham boards [who] insult Tony Khan and question his suitability for the role he has", so if you were just to dismiss all those posts as "people believing what they want to believe", that would obviously be very wrong.
Haters like to hate. It was easier to sign a player before the internet. Now you get a sniff, it hits the web and other people are trying to steal them. No loyalty from players agents. Not as easy as you all think.
If the Podcast wasn't forced to ask certain questions, avoiding others, and if they were allowed to retort and press on certain points, then maybe something would have come from it to allow those with a negative view of TK to feel otherwise, but since it was nothing of the like, that was never going to happen.
Quote from: Texas White on June 27, 2019, 12:57:06 PM
Quote from: Statto on June 27, 2019, 12:40:51 PM
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 12:22:31 PM
Quote from: Statto on June 27, 2019, 11:51:59 AM
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 10:00:45 AM
People believe what they believe and interpret things through that lens.
I see this sort of comment a lot both in politics and debates about Tony Khan. Has it crossed your mind that perhaps the comment itself is your "belief" and "lens"? Perhaps the opposing arguments you dismiss as driven by entrenched belief, are actually based by objective reasoning, and you just can't accept that?
Well people are taking opposing things from the podcast despite all hearing the same words. And confirmation is a very well known bias that we're all prone to. So I don't think I'm saying anything too outlandish am I?
It's not a question of not accepting things. I can disagree, though, right? People all over the Fulham boards are allowed to insult Tony Khan and question his suitability for the role he has, but if someone like me thinks he's broadly on the right lines and doesn't deserve all the poo he gets, well then that seems to rub people up the wrong way.
If you're talking about specific statements that some people have clearly misinterpreted due to their own bias, then I entirely sympathise with you there.
But the comment you made is one I often hear used to make broader, unfair generalisations, eg "Group A only voted for B because of their entrenched, misguided belief in C"
For example, there's plenty of empirical data and other reasonable evidence to support the "People all over the Fulham boards [who] insult Tony Khan and question his suitability for the role he has", so if you were just to dismiss all those posts as "people believing what they want to believe", that would obviously be very wrong.
Haters like to hate. It was easier to sign a player before the internet. Now you get a sniff, it hits the web and other people are trying to steal them. No loyalty from players agents. Not as easy as you all think.
The internet? Give over. You think it's the internet that does that? It's agents!!!!
Quote from: Dr Quinzel on June 27, 2019, 01:19:24 PM
If the Podcast wasn't forced to ask certain questions, avoiding others, and if they were allowed to retort and press on certain points, then maybe something would have come from it to allow those with a negative view of TK to feel otherwise, but since it was nothing of the like, that was never going to happen.
no but even there, you understand that he's hardly going to criticise current players who he may be trying to sell, or talk about Sessegnon for obvious reasons. The supporters trust have talked about tickets and that's minuted I think. So what was missing really? Was there nothing of use or interest there for you? For me the hour flew by and I was fascinated.
It's not uncommon for the higher-ups, i.e. CEO's, presidents, directors and such, to take credit for all the good things that are done underneath during their tenure. This is nothing new and I suspect will continue throughout time.
I have no doubt that in the end it was Tony who put the final decision in bringing Mitro. Somewhere however I am sure there was an underling who originally put Mitro into the two-box system by either the means of scouting or stats.
What would be nice would be for the higher-ups to give credit due to everyone and say something like, "My team started tracking Mitro while he was at Newcastle. We put him in the system and in the end, while it was ultimately my decision, we all agreed Mitro would be a good deal and a good fit. "
Quote from: love4ffc on June 27, 2019, 01:27:18 PM
It's not uncommon for the higher-ups, i.e. CEO's, presidents, directors and such, to take credit for all the good things that are done underneath during their tenure. This is nothing new and I suspect will continue throughout time.
I have no doubt that in the end it was Tony who put the final decision in bringing Mitro. Somewhere however I am sure there was an underling who originally put Mitro into the two-box system by either the means of scouting or stats.
What would be nice would be for the higher-ups to give credit due to everyone and say something like, "My team started tracking Mitro while he was at Newcastle. We put him in the system and in the end, while it was ultimately my decision, we all agreed Mitro would be a good deal and a good fit. "
but this is what I mean. He literally said that the coaching staff had tracked him and recommended him and that when Mitro's move to Anderlecht fell through, it came down to relationships (Slav). So he said what you suggest more or less. But people aren't taking that from the podcast at all. I wonder how many people with an opinion on this actually listened to it. Not you, generally I mean.
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 01:21:12 PM
Quote from: Dr Quinzel on June 27, 2019, 01:19:24 PM
If the Podcast wasn't forced to ask certain questions, avoiding others, and if they were allowed to retort and press on certain points, then maybe something would have come from it to allow those with a negative view of TK to feel otherwise, but since it was nothing of the like, that was never going to happen.
no but even there, you understand that he's hardly going to criticise current players who he may be trying to sell, or talk about Sessegnon for obvious reasons. The supporters trust have talked about tickets and that's minuted I think. So what was missing really? Was there nothing of use or interest there for you? For me the hour flew by and I was fascinated.
All points have been discussed by the FST and minuted, so that's fairly irrelevant. There were points at which the interviewers could have pushed back ie - Being relegated in April meant he had a head start on the market : OK, so where are we? Why has yet again nothing happened? - Leaving transfers late allows for occasional better deals - OK, but are lost points not more important? - I do lots of work on Fulham when I'm away - Right, but you have three other jobs. How can you possibly split your time? None of this has to be critical points that would lose the club money ie discussing Sessegnon, but the fact that this obviously wasn't allowed and that TK only came into the interview with the knowledge he wouldn't be pushed on certain matters meant that the line of questioning gave someone like myself, a concerned fan, no reason to feel any differently, as we learned nothing new and didn't have our concerns allayed. Honestly, I found it very hard listening - he isn't my type of person whatsoever, and at this point I'm finding it hard to not find my enjoyment of my club affected by his presence.
Quote from: love4ffc on June 27, 2019, 01:27:18 PM
It's not uncommon for the higher-ups, i.e. CEO's, presidents, directors and such, to take credit for all the good things that are done underneath during their tenure. This is nothing new and I suspect will continue throughout time.
I have no doubt that in the end it was Tony who put the final decision in bringing Mitro. Somewhere however I am sure there was an underling who originally put Mitro into the two-box system by either the means of scouting or stats.
What would be nice would be for the higher-ups to give credit due to everyone and say something like, "My team started tracking Mitro while he was at Newcastle. We put him in the system and in the end, while it was ultimately my decision, we all agreed Mitro would be a good deal and a good fit. "
Very fair, and speaks for people's assertion that he is both arrogant and in need of validation.
Quote from: Dr Quinzel on June 27, 2019, 01:33:45 PM
Quote from: love4ffc on June 27, 2019, 01:27:18 PM
It's not uncommon for the higher-ups, i.e. CEO's, presidents, directors and such, to take credit for all the good things that are done underneath during their tenure. This is nothing new and I suspect will continue throughout time.
I have no doubt that in the end it was Tony who put the final decision in bringing Mitro. Somewhere however I am sure there was an underling who originally put Mitro into the two-box system by either the means of scouting or stats.
What would be nice would be for the higher-ups to give credit due to everyone and say something like, "My team started tracking Mitro while he was at Newcastle. We put him in the system and in the end, while it was ultimately my decision, we all agreed Mitro would be a good deal and a good fit. "
Very fair, and speaks for people's assertion that he is both arrogant and in need of validation.
but did he not address this?
Quote from: love4ffc on June 27, 2019, 01:27:18 PM
It's not uncommon for the higher-ups, i.e. CEO's, presidents, directors and such, to take credit for all the good things that are done underneath during their tenure. This is nothing new and I suspect will continue throughout time.
I have no doubt that in the end it was Tony who put the final decision in bringing Mitro. Somewhere however I am sure there was an underling who originally put Mitro into the two-box system by either the means of scouting or stats.
What would be nice would be for the higher-ups to give credit due to everyone and say something like, "My team started tracking Mitro while he was at Newcastle. We put him in the system and in the end, while it was ultimately my decision, we all agreed Mitro would be a good deal and a good fit. "
Go and listen to the podcast because he literally says it was a team effort and all he really did was go to SK and say please can you sign off on this because Mitro will be our most expensive loan signing ever
Quote from: Dr Quinzel on June 27, 2019, 01:33:45 PM
Quote from: love4ffc on June 27, 2019, 01:27:18 PM
It's not uncommon for the higher-ups, i.e. CEO's, presidents, directors and such, to take credit for all the good things that are done underneath during their tenure. This is nothing new and I suspect will continue throughout time.
I have no doubt that in the end it was Tony who put the final decision in bringing Mitro. Somewhere however I am sure there was an underling who originally put Mitro into the two-box system by either the means of scouting or stats.
What would be nice would be for the higher-ups to give credit due to everyone and say something like, "My team started tracking Mitro while he was at Newcastle. We put him in the system and in the end, while it was ultimately my decision, we all agreed Mitro would be a good deal and a good fit. "
Very fair, and speaks for people's assertion that he is both arrogant and in need of validation.
TK has the kind of personality that you'll either see or see through. Who is right and who is wrong is a matter of personal taste. I personally don't see him as a leader and some of the things he said endorsed that view. There is the point where he says he never interfered with team selection and yet he also says he expressed opinions on same to the coaches. That is a reflection of how his personality works and how he expects (note the word) others to deal with. Leaders require followers and I believe TK follows in order to appear to lead - in other words his logic is as twisted as his belief that data manipulation can do what a human being cannot. First law of programming - it needs a human being to understand the problem thoroughly before being able to determine if a computer can produce the desired result.
Overall I would say it was a good podcast for Fulhamish, FFC and TK. Was there anything ground breaking and truly revealing? No, not really. Still thought it was good of TK to do it.
Do think it would be great if TK, or even Khan senior, to do more of these type of things throughout the season. I
Quote from: Deeping_white on June 27, 2019, 01:45:09 PM
Quote from: love4ffc on June 27, 2019, 01:27:18 PM
It's not uncommon for the higher-ups, i.e. CEO's, presidents, directors and such, to take credit for all the good things that are done underneath during their tenure. This is nothing new and I suspect will continue throughout time.
I have no doubt that in the end it was Tony who put the final decision in bringing Mitro. Somewhere however I am sure there was an underling who originally put Mitro into the two-box system by either the means of scouting or stats.
What would be nice would be for the higher-ups to give credit due to everyone and say something like, "My team started tracking Mitro while he was at Newcastle. We put him in the system and in the end, while it was ultimately my decision, we all agreed Mitro would be a good deal and a good fit. "
Go and listen to the podcast because he literally says it was a team effort and all he really did was go to SK and say please can you sign off on this because Mitro will be our most expensive loan signing ever
But he didn't say that in as many words. All he had to do was to be humble and he couldn't do it.
Quote from: toshes mate on June 27, 2019, 01:50:10 PM
Quote from: Dr Quinzel on June 27, 2019, 01:33:45 PM
Quote from: love4ffc on June 27, 2019, 01:27:18 PM
It's not uncommon for the higher-ups, i.e. CEO's, presidents, directors and such, to take credit for all the good things that are done underneath during their tenure. This is nothing new and I suspect will continue throughout time.
I have no doubt that in the end it was Tony who put the final decision in bringing Mitro. Somewhere however I am sure there was an underling who originally put Mitro into the two-box system by either the means of scouting or stats.
What would be nice would be for the higher-ups to give credit due to everyone and say something like, "My team started tracking Mitro while he was at Newcastle. We put him in the system and in the end, while it was ultimately my decision, we all agreed Mitro would be a good deal and a good fit. "
Very fair, and speaks for people's assertion that he is both arrogant and in need of validation.
TK has the kind of personality that you'll either see or see through. Who is right and who is wrong is a matter of personal taste. I personally don't see him as a leader and some of the things he said endorsed that view. There is the point where he says he never interfered with team selection and yet he also says he expressed opinions on same to the coaches. That is a reflection of how his personality works and how he expects (note the word) others to deal with. Leaders require followers and I believe TK follows in order to appear to lead - in other words his logic is as twisted as his belief that data manipulation can do what a human being cannot. First law of programming - it needs a human being to understand the problem thoroughly before being able to determine if a computer can produce the desired result.
But it's fairly well established that it can. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1788702050/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 the first few pages of this book give an excellent overview of why. Humans will see the same match and give very different interpretations of what they've seen. They'll remember some bits and not others, and what they see will conform to their own biases. And they can only see a very limited number of games, too. Data gets past all that. Your point about needing to understand is reasonable but the data ought to prove itself and, as noted in the interview, if the scouts and data disagree they'll keep looking to understand why. So it doesn't seem unreasonable at all.
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 01:57:48 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 27, 2019, 01:50:10 PM
Quote from: Dr Quinzel on June 27, 2019, 01:33:45 PM
Quote from: love4ffc on June 27, 2019, 01:27:18 PM
It's not uncommon for the higher-ups, i.e. CEO's, presidents, directors and such, to take credit for all the good things that are done underneath during their tenure. This is nothing new and I suspect will continue throughout time.
I have no doubt that in the end it was Tony who put the final decision in bringing Mitro. Somewhere however I am sure there was an underling who originally put Mitro into the two-box system by either the means of scouting or stats.
What would be nice would be for the higher-ups to give credit due to everyone and say something like, "My team started tracking Mitro while he was at Newcastle. We put him in the system and in the end, while it was ultimately my decision, we all agreed Mitro would be a good deal and a good fit. "
Very fair, and speaks for people's assertion that he is both arrogant and in need of validation.
TK has the kind of personality that you'll either see or see through. Who is right and who is wrong is a matter of personal taste. I personally don't see him as a leader and some of the things he said endorsed that view. There is the point where he says he never interfered with team selection and yet he also says he expressed opinions on same to the coaches. That is a reflection of how his personality works and how he expects (note the word) others to deal with. Leaders require followers and I believe TK follows in order to appear to lead - in other words his logic is as twisted as his belief that data manipulation can do what a human being cannot. First law of programming - it needs a human being to understand the problem thoroughly before being able to determine if a computer can produce the desired result.
But it's fairly well established that it can. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1788702050/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 the first few pages of this book give an excellent overview of why. Humans will see the same match and give very different interpretations of what they've seen. They'll remember some bits and not others, and what they see will conform to their own biases. And they can only see a very limited number of games, too. Data gets past all that. Your point about needing to understand is reasonable but the data ought to prove itself and, as noted in the interview, if the scouts and data disagree they'll keep looking to understand why. So it doesn't seem unreasonable at all.
I am a computer programmer of almost fifty years experience. What do I know?
Quote from: AnOldBrownie on June 26, 2019, 06:15:54 PM
Can someone tell me the exact starting date of TK as director of football?
I think we all agree that he's inexperienced.
I think we can also agree that he shouldn't buy injured players...which he's done too often in the past.
He's made mistakes...yes.
He also signed Mitrovic (as he stated in the interview)
He also extended Sess and his brothers contract
He also offered Slav an extension of his contract prior to the team getting promoted (can someone confirm this please)
He signed Ryan Babel who NO ONE on this forum would have picked (it was also obvious that in addition to having a horrible defense...Fulham needed someone besides Mitro and Schurrle scoring goals) and Ryan was arguably one of the best...if not the best player on Fulham's side for the last 10 games.
....
Now...I'm about to bring up someone that I KNOW I'm going to get a lot of slack for... but Tony Khan brought in Timothy Fosu Mensah on loan as a young, aggressive FB (I think he was 20 when he came to Fulham) who would have started more games at RB for Crystal Palace except he was unseated by the player that just got 50 million from Manchester United to be their starting RB.
And it has been posted several places on the internet...and myself before those post...Timothy Fosu Mensah was one of the few available right backs with EPL experience that was just as fast as Ryan Fredericks. And he'd played some really good games against the likes of Manchester City and Tottenham (before he'd turned 20)
Yes...last minute acquisition...but Tony Khan did his best to try and find a Ryan Fredericks replacement knowing full well that Cyrus Christie wasn't good enough.
He also brought in Chambers.
That's Mawson, Chambers and Timbo...who...based on their stats and some of the eyeball test...were good additions to a promoted championship side.
It failed miserably.
He knows it failed miserably.
The true test will be how long it takes for TK to learn from his mistakes and for Fulham to come back up.
I'll take the Khans as a pair before I give up on the two of them for an owner I don't know and a DOF that has more experience.
That might not be the case in 3 years, but for right now I'm ok with Tony Khan learning on the job.
I happen to think everything you say is a perfectly reasonable and is a proper rounded argumen. I come from a placer that says since Mr Khan took over (snr) we have generally been poor in the transfer department, very poor. Now we all know that all transfers are a gamble and when MAF arrived there were a number of dreadful signings BUT the general direction of travel and the attempt to get it right was generally in the right direction. When MAF got it werong he fixed it and changed direction.
What we have now is a very poor transfer policy and despite what TK says, the players we got in each of the last three seasons have left a lot to be desired. The promotion season in the end revolved around 14 players that fortunately remianed fit, the rest of the squad was way below the required standard. We also had the best manager and he knew how to get the best from the players. With a different manager TK would have still assembled the same squad and I am 98% certain there would not have been a wonderful day at Wembley.
The issue overiding all this is we all want what is best for Fulham or why else are we discussing the issue. My experience over nearly 60 years of watching and continuing to play (when I can get enough players to come and have a game) is that TK is absolutely the wrong man for the job with which he is entrusted. I see season after season the same errors repeating. The fact he cannot get players in ion the right day is testement to him not knowing what he was dioing, Christensen was mentioned in the podcast he says was universally welcomed... I didn't welcome him, it seemed to me a bizarre signing at the time and said so. It's not rocket science it#''s knowedge of the game. I do not need a spreadsheet to tell me that a player is not good enough or suitable.
This next season is likely to be a debacle because TK does not seem to have learned one single thing. He thinks the same squad as the promotion season will be enough, ior should I say same squad plus to french speaking liabilities. The lack of slav will do for us unless we have major surgery of the correct type in good time before the first ball is kicked and to date there is no evidence that to suggest we are buying a fit center half (I have no faith we will see mawsom for more than 10 games) a proper right back (Christie is dreadful we all know that) a dominant physicl central midfielder and another center forward. Not rocket science.
TK thought rico and fabri were a good idea, I rest my case.
I was deflated with the news AK is coming back.
I just dont happen to think he is that good. Apart from that, all seems well
Quote from: toshes mate on June 27, 2019, 02:03:23 PM
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 01:57:48 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 27, 2019, 01:50:10 PM
Quote from: Dr Quinzel on June 27, 2019, 01:33:45 PM
Quote from: love4ffc on June 27, 2019, 01:27:18 PM
It's not uncommon for the higher-ups, i.e. CEO's, presidents, directors and such, to take credit for all the good things that are done underneath during their tenure. This is nothing new and I suspect will continue throughout time.
I have no doubt that in the end it was Tony who put the final decision in bringing Mitro. Somewhere however I am sure there was an underling who originally put Mitro into the two-box system by either the means of scouting or stats.
What would be nice would be for the higher-ups to give credit due to everyone and say something like, "My team started tracking Mitro while he was at Newcastle. We put him in the system and in the end, while it was ultimately my decision, we all agreed Mitro would be a good deal and a good fit. "
Very fair, and speaks for people's assertion that he is both arrogant and in need of validation.
TK has the kind of personality that you'll either see or see through. Who is right and who is wrong is a matter of personal taste. I personally don't see him as a leader and some of the things he said endorsed that view. There is the point where he says he never interfered with team selection and yet he also says he expressed opinions on same to the coaches. That is a reflection of how his personality works and how he expects (note the word) others to deal with. Leaders require followers and I believe TK follows in order to appear to lead - in other words his logic is as twisted as his belief that data manipulation can do what a human being cannot. First law of programming - it needs a human being to understand the problem thoroughly before being able to determine if a computer can produce the desired result.
But it's fairly well established that it can. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1788702050/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 the first few pages of this book give an excellent overview of why. Humans will see the same match and give very different interpretations of what they've seen. They'll remember some bits and not others, and what they see will conform to their own biases. And they can only see a very limited number of games, too. Data gets past all that. Your point about needing to understand is reasonable but the data ought to prove itself and, as noted in the interview, if the scouts and data disagree they'll keep looking to understand why. So it doesn't seem unreasonable at all.
I am a computer programmer of almost fifty years experience. What do I know?
I don't know?
In the past, if company A fancies buying company B it would look for an info it could find maybe look over company B's books given the chance. Now that would all be accessed via computers and.various analysts will crunch the data. That's all he's trying to do. To rule out as many negatives as possible. It's not 100% maybe somewhere round 50%. If he can get his %'s up then the Club succeeds. Whilst we have one of the richest men in the World holding the reins I'm happy to let him get on with it and try and make it work.
The good news is hate or love TKs system Scott is sitting down with hi and the scouting team and talking about the players that are potential targets , which seems in the past hasn't been done so how can you moan about a process that they haven;t wanted to be part of.
So any F ups this time on transfer Scott has approved but still TK will get the blame the one that work Scott will be heralded as a god
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 02:19:45 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 27, 2019, 02:03:23 PM
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 01:57:48 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 27, 2019, 01:50:10 PM
Quote from: Dr Quinzel on June 27, 2019, 01:33:45 PM
Quote from: love4ffc on June 27, 2019, 01:27:18 PM
It's not uncommon for the higher-ups, i.e. CEO's, presidents, directors and such, to take credit for all the good things that are done underneath during their tenure. This is nothing new and I suspect will continue throughout time.
I have no doubt that in the end it was Tony who put the final decision in bringing Mitro. Somewhere however I am sure there was an underling who originally put Mitro into the two-box system by either the means of scouting or stats.
What would be nice would be for the higher-ups to give credit due to everyone and say something like, "My team started tracking Mitro while he was at Newcastle. We put him in the system and in the end, while it was ultimately my decision, we all agreed Mitro would be a good deal and a good fit. "
Very fair, and speaks for people's assertion that he is both arrogant and in need of validation.
TK has the kind of personality that you'll either see or see through. Who is right and who is wrong is a matter of personal taste. I personally don't see him as a leader and some of the things he said endorsed that view. There is the point where he says he never interfered with team selection and yet he also says he expressed opinions on same to the coaches. That is a reflection of how his personality works and how he expects (note the word) others to deal with. Leaders require followers and I believe TK follows in order to appear to lead - in other words his logic is as twisted as his belief that data manipulation can do what a human being cannot. First law of programming - it needs a human being to understand the problem thoroughly before being able to determine if a computer can produce the desired result.
But it's fairly well established that it can. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1788702050/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 the first few pages of this book give an excellent overview of why. Humans will see the same match and give very different interpretations of what they've seen. They'll remember some bits and not others, and what they see will conform to their own biases. And they can only see a very limited number of games, too. Data gets past all that. Your point about needing to understand is reasonable but the data ought to prove itself and, as noted in the interview, if the scouts and data disagree they'll keep looking to understand why. So it doesn't seem unreasonable at all.
I am a computer programmer of almost fifty years experience. What do I know?
I don't know?
Java and Python? :005:
Quote from: I Ronic on June 27, 2019, 02:23:39 PM
In the past, if company A fancies buying company B it would look for an info it could find maybe look over company B's books given the chance. Now that would all be accessed via computers and.various analysts will crunch the data. That's all he's trying to do. To rule out as many negatives as possible. It's not 100% maybe somewhere round 50%. If he can get his %'s up then the Club succeeds. Whilst we have one of the richest men in the World holding the reins I'm happy to let him get on with it and try and make it work.
No problem with the use of analytics. Problem is with the man with a past history of failure doing so, and not doing it particularly well. Amongst other things.
You cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
Quote from: Nero on June 27, 2019, 02:43:45 PM
The good needs is hate or love TKs system Scott is sitting down with hi and the scouting team and talking about the players that are potential targets , which seems in the past hasn't been done so how can you moan about a process that they haven;t wanted to be part of.
So any F ups this time on transfer Scott has approved but still TK will get the blame the one that work Scott will be heralded as a god
Loved that part about Scott sitting in on as many transfer meetings and getting everybody into the same room. Shows Scott really wants to be involved in all aspects of the team decisions and shows great character on his part.
Quote from: Dr Quinzel on June 27, 2019, 02:50:07 PM
Quote from: I Ronic on June 27, 2019, 02:23:39 PM
In the past, if company A fancies buying company B it would look for an info it could find maybe look over company B's books given the chance. Now that would all be accessed via computers and.various analysts will crunch the data. That's all he's trying to do. To rule out as many negatives as possible. It's not 100% maybe somewhere round 50%. If he can get his %'s up then the Club succeeds. Whilst we have one of the richest men in the World holding the reins I'm happy to let him get on with it and try and make it work.
No problem with the use of analytics. Problem is with the man with a past history of failure doing so, and not doing it particularly well. Amongst other things.
Ah for sure. FWIW I think he's probably done quite well with identifying players but not with buying them at a reasonable price. I think Anguissa and Seri could have been more than useful in a more complete squad, but not sure how they ended up at the price they did for them. There are obvious misses and some hits, which is the norm for these things. I don't know that we're better or worse than we ought to be. Except that this methodology ought to help us find undervalued players, and there's not much point in finding hidden gems if you then pay £25/30m for them.
I agree with those who question the goalkeeping acquisitions as well and part of me wonders if this didn't inflict more damage than is otherwise realised - if your keeper is awful it's hard for anyone else to look good. And analytics overall does struggle with keepers.
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 02:19:45 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 27, 2019, 02:03:23 PM
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 01:57:48 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 27, 2019, 01:50:10 PM
Quote from: Dr Quinzel on June 27, 2019, 01:33:45 PM
Quote from: love4ffc on June 27, 2019, 01:27:18 PM
It's not uncommon for the higher-ups, i.e. CEO's, presidents, directors and such, to take credit for all the good things that are done underneath during their tenure. This is nothing new and I suspect will continue throughout time.
I have no doubt that in the end it was Tony who put the final decision in bringing Mitro. Somewhere however I am sure there was an underling who originally put Mitro into the two-box system by either the means of scouting or stats.
What would be nice would be for the higher-ups to give credit due to everyone and say something like, "My team started tracking Mitro while he was at Newcastle. We put him in the system and in the end, while it was ultimately my decision, we all agreed Mitro would be a good deal and a good fit. "
Very fair, and speaks for people's assertion that he is both arrogant and in need of validation.
TK has the kind of personality that you'll either see or see through. Who is right and who is wrong is a matter of personal taste. I personally don't see him as a leader and some of the things he said endorsed that view. There is the point where he says he never interfered with team selection and yet he also says he expressed opinions on same to the coaches. That is a reflection of how his personality works and how he expects (note the word) others to deal with. Leaders require followers and I believe TK follows in order to appear to lead - in other words his logic is as twisted as his belief that data manipulation can do what a human being cannot. First law of programming - it needs a human being to understand the problem thoroughly before being able to determine if a computer can produce the desired result.
But it's fairly well established that it can. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1788702050/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 the first few pages of this book give an excellent overview of why. Humans will see the same match and give very different interpretations of what they've seen. They'll remember some bits and not others, and what they see will conform to their own biases. And they can only see a very limited number of games, too. Data gets past all that. Your point about needing to understand is reasonable but the data ought to prove itself and, as noted in the interview, if the scouts and data disagree they'll keep looking to understand why. So it doesn't seem unreasonable at all.
I am a computer programmer of almost fifty years experience. What do I know?
I don't know?
Data has to be specific or precise to have any meaning at all to a human being e.g. You think TK is wonderful and I don't. Now we could set up a computer program to determine who out of the two of us is right or wrong. To do so we would sit down and determine what makes a human being wonderful. We could spend a lifetime arguing about the things that make a human being wonderful and not reach agreement, but we want to be friendly and get the computer program to run, and so we agree upon a compromise set of factors suitable for it. We also manage to agree on each factor as it relates to TK. We enter the data into the computer. We run the program and it says 'you are right' and 'I am wrong'. What has the computer told us? (It isn't a trick question).
Quote from: colinwhite on June 27, 2019, 10:08:02 AM
Well ive been called afew things in my time but psycophant is a new one on me ! Either way uncalled for and out of order.
I had to look that poo up. I was impressed. :003:
Quote from: 70sPimlico on June 27, 2019, 02:19:10 PM
I was deflated with the news AK is coming back.
I just dont happen to think he is that good. Apart from that, all seems well
I thought the interview went very well, apart from the bit where TK seemed to think that Kamara is a starting XI player rather than a super-sub. I really hope we don't start next season with Atyie and Kamara starting every game. He clearly rates both players as starters, I rate them as bench players only.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 27, 2019, 01:58:09 AM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 26, 2019, 12:38:58 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 03:40:31 PM
I believe Tony Khan has the ability to source money from Fulham's owner better than other DoF. The ability to source money is Best Prediictor of DoF success. Even if Shahid Khan wasn't the owner, I have little doubt about Tony Khan's ability to source money probable from his family.
So let me try a question. assume TK's dad was broke, i.e. has no vast cash reserve... would TK be a good DoF based on his track record?
Maybe, if Fulham's owner was broke, we would have to employ the cheapest DoF in world football, which is Tony Khan. More seriously of course, Tony Khan is DoF because of his access to his dads money so what. Privellege goes to rich sons that is not a secret, I doubt David Cameron and Boris Johnson would have been Prime Ministers, if their rich parents sent them to the poshiest school in the world (i.e Eton College).
I am, truly struggling to follow any of your logic from the initial comments on the first page where you said TK would get a job elsewhere because he works for free. I had said that TK would not get a job anywhere else in football as DoF because he is not good enough and is only at Fulham because of his dad. IMO and many others, he is very poor at his job and we the supporters, who are powerless to stop this negligence being carried forward, and cough up to support the beloved team, are totally frustrated watching the same errors over and over since the Khan's took over. This would not be acceptable anywhere else.
I am not sure why you are incapable of just saying you agree that TK is clearly the wrong man for the job based on the evidence. And if you do not agree point me to the contrary evidence.
Quote from: toshes mate on June 27, 2019, 03:04:21 PM
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 02:19:45 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 27, 2019, 02:03:23 PM
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 01:57:48 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 27, 2019, 01:50:10 PM
Quote from: Dr Quinzel on June 27, 2019, 01:33:45 PM
Quote from: love4ffc on June 27, 2019, 01:27:18 PM
It's not uncommon for the higher-ups, i.e. CEO's, presidents, directors and such, to take credit for all the good things that are done underneath during their tenure. This is nothing new and I suspect will continue throughout time.
I have no doubt that in the end it was Tony who put the final decision in bringing Mitro. Somewhere however I am sure there was an underling who originally put Mitro into the two-box system by either the means of scouting or stats.
What would be nice would be for the higher-ups to give credit due to everyone and say something like, "My team started tracking Mitro while he was at Newcastle. We put him in the system and in the end, while it was ultimately my decision, we all agreed Mitro would be a good deal and a good fit. "
Very fair, and speaks for people's assertion that he is both arrogant and in need of validation.
TK has the kind of personality that you'll either see or see through. Who is right and who is wrong is a matter of personal taste. I personally don't see him as a leader and some of the things he said endorsed that view. There is the point where he says he never interfered with team selection and yet he also says he expressed opinions on same to the coaches. That is a reflection of how his personality works and how he expects (note the word) others to deal with. Leaders require followers and I believe TK follows in order to appear to lead - in other words his logic is as twisted as his belief that data manipulation can do what a human being cannot. First law of programming - it needs a human being to understand the problem thoroughly before being able to determine if a computer can produce the desired result.
But it's fairly well established that it can. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1788702050/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 the first few pages of this book give an excellent overview of why. Humans will see the same match and give very different interpretations of what they've seen. They'll remember some bits and not others, and what they see will conform to their own biases. And they can only see a very limited number of games, too. Data gets past all that. Your point about needing to understand is reasonable but the data ought to prove itself and, as noted in the interview, if the scouts and data disagree they'll keep looking to understand why. So it doesn't seem unreasonable at all.
I am a computer programmer of almost fifty years experience. What do I know?
I don't know?
Data has to be specific or precise to have any meaning at all to a human being e.g. You think TK is wonderful and I don't. Now we could set up a computer program to determine who out of the two of us is right or wrong. To do so we would sit down and determine what makes a human being wonderful. We could spend a lifetime arguing about the things that make a human being wonderful and not reach agreement, but we want to be friendly and get the computer program to run, and so we agree upon a compromise set of factors suitable for it. We also manage to agree on each factor as it relates to TK. We enter the data into the computer. We run the program and it says 'you are right' and 'I am wrong'. What has the computer told us? (It isn't a trick question).
I don't think he's wonderful at all though. This is why the internet is so insane these days. You try to suggest that all these extreme views are a bit much and you're automatically cast onto the other extreme. I just said a few times that I feel he's broadly on the right lines and doesn't deserve all the nonsense thrown his way.
As for football, it's probably not that different to anything that's quantitatively measured. So if you're looking at share performance you can see what variables might predict future performance and then back test this with data to the point where, to a degree, you can predict future performance. so you do the same here. What data is important in winning football matches? Then break down from there. It's work in progress but far from impossible, particularly now when the data is so much more advanced.
Quote from: ALG01 on June 27, 2019, 03:15:53 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 27, 2019, 01:58:09 AM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 26, 2019, 12:38:58 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 03:40:31 PM
I believe Tony Khan has the ability to source money from Fulham's owner better than other DoF. The ability to source money is Best Prediictor of DoF success. Even if Shahid Khan wasn't the owner, I have little doubt about Tony Khan's ability to source money probable from his family.
So let me try a question. assume TK's dad was broke, i.e. has no vast cash reserve... would TK be a good DoF based on his track record?
Maybe, if Fulham's owner was broke, we would have to employ the cheapest DoF in world football, which is Tony Khan. More seriously of course, Tony Khan is DoF because of his access to his dads money so what. Privellege goes to rich sons that is not a secret, I doubt David Cameron and Boris Johnson would have been Prime Ministers, if their rich parents sent them to the poshiest school in the world (i.e Eton College).
I am, truly struggling to follow any of your logic from the initial comments on the first page where you said TK would get a job elsewhere because he works for free. I had said that TK would not get a job anywhere else in football as DoF because he is not good enough and is only at Fulham because of his dad. IMO and many others, he is very poor at his job and we the supporters, who are powerless to stop this negligence being carried forward, and cough up to support the beloved team, are totally frustrated watching the same errors over and over since the Khan's took over. This would not be acceptable anywhere else.
I am not sure why you are incapable of just saying you agree that TK is clearly the wrong man for the job based on the evidence. And if you do not agree point me to the contrary evidence.
I believe that Tony Khan is the right man for the job, cause he is incredibly strong at obtaining funding and investor relations (the main investor was at his conception); we don't need a new DOF but we do need a better advisors particularly in the scouting team to compensate for his inexperience in that area.
Quote from: ALG01 on June 27, 2019, 03:15:53 PM
I am not sure why you are incapable of just saying you agree that TK is clearly the wrong man for the job based on the evidence. And if you do not agree point me to the contrary evidence.
You want him to say there are much better DofF candidates. Correct?
We all agree there are probably at least 20 individuals that would make better DofF and Tony Khan is learning as he goes, while managing other roles with other businesses.
And?
His dad isn't going to fire him prior to this season kicking off.
Quote from: AnOldBrownie on June 27, 2019, 03:30:00 PM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 27, 2019, 03:15:53 PM
I am not sure why you are incapable of just saying you agree that TK is clearly the wrong man for the job based on the evidence. And if you do not agree point me to the contrary evidence.
You want him to say there are much better DofF candidates. Correct?
We all agree there are probably at least 20 individuals that would make better DofF and Tony Khan is learning as he goes, while managing other roles with other businesses.
And?
His dad isn't going to fire him prior to this season kicking off.
but that's another issue. DOF is a woolly role and not that many people can say they've done it well. especially in England where we've unusually wed to the cult of the manager (not here though...)
Quote from: AnOldBrownie on June 27, 2019, 03:30:00 PM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 27, 2019, 03:15:53 PM
I am not sure why you are incapable of just saying you agree that TK is clearly the wrong man for the job based on the evidence. And if you do not agree point me to the contrary evidence.
You want him to say there are much better DofF candidates. Correct?
We all agree there are probably at least 20 individuals that would make better DofF and Tony Khan is learning as he goes, while managing other roles with other businesses. And?
His dad isn't going to fire him prior to this season kicking off.
Plus if Tony Khan is to be believed, his father wouldn't have loaned Mitrovoic except Tony Khan was DoF. So, if we fire the Dof and the new DoF cannot convince SK to spend money, then we are toast. Any DoF backed by the owner financial will do better than one that is not.
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 03:17:32 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 27, 2019, 03:04:21 PM
Data has to be specific or precise to have any meaning at all to a human being e.g. You think TK is wonderful and I don't. Now we could set up a computer program to determine who out of the two of us is right or wrong. To do so we would sit down and determine what makes a human being wonderful. We could spend a lifetime arguing about the things that make a human being wonderful and not reach agreement, but we want to be friendly and get the computer program to run, and so we agree upon a compromise set of factors suitable for it. We also manage to agree on each factor as it relates to TK. We enter the data into the computer. We run the program and it says 'you are right' and 'I am wrong'. What has the computer told us? (It isn't a trick question).
I don't think he's wonderful at all though. This is why the internet is so insane these days. You try to suggest that all these extreme views are a bit much and you're automatically cast onto the other extreme. I just said a few times that I feel he's broadly on the right lines and doesn't deserve all the nonsense thrown his way.
As for football, it's probably not that different to anything that's quantitatively measured. So if you're looking at share performance you can see what variables might predict future performance and then back test this with data to the point where, to a degree, you can predict future performance. so you do the same here. What data is important in winning football matches? Then break down from there. It's work in progress but far from impossible, particularly now when the data is so much more advanced.
It was a make believe scenario. My apologies for not being clearer about that.
The simple answer to my question was that, based upon our scores, the score for TK being wonderful added up to more points than the score for him not being wonderful. There are trickier answers to the question e.g. you are a better negotiator for TK than I am against him and so on. The point is the data put in by us is the data that will be pushed out to us. The computer simply adds up and makes calculations based on the input.
Good data is good data and bad data is bad data. Computers simply manipulate what is fed to them as in garbage in, garbage out.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on June 27, 2019, 02:51:34 PM
You cannot make a silk purse out of a sours ear.
or a sow's ear
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 27, 2019, 03:47:36 PM
Quote from: AnOldBrownie on June 27, 2019, 03:30:00 PM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 27, 2019, 03:15:53 PM
I am not sure why you are incapable of just saying you agree that TK is clearly the wrong man for the job based on the evidence. And if you do not agree point me to the contrary evidence.
You want him to say there are much better DofF candidates. Correct?
We all agree there are probably at least 20 individuals that would make better DofF and Tony Khan is learning as he goes, while managing other roles with other businesses. And?
His dad isn't going to fire him prior to this season kicking off.
Plus if Tony Khan is to be believed, his father wouldn't have loaned Mitrovoic except Tony Khan was DoF. So, if we fire the Dof and the new DoF cannot convince SK to spend money, then we are toast. Any DoF backed by the owner financial will do better than one that is not.
Yes, but, the question raised via TK's interaction with his dad was about the financing of his loan in an unexpected opportunity situation not per se. According to TK we had already bid for Mitro and he chose Anderlecht over us. That suggests the money was already there for a transfer if not a loan. I do get your reasoning behind the TK-SK situation but I think you over play it far too dramatically.
Quote from: toshes mate on June 27, 2019, 04:12:29 PM
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 03:17:32 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 27, 2019, 03:04:21 PM
Data has to be specific or precise to have any meaning at all to a human being e.g. You think TK is wonderful and I don't. Now we could set up a computer program to determine who out of the two of us is right or wrong. To do so we would sit down and determine what makes a human being wonderful. We could spend a lifetime arguing about the things that make a human being wonderful and not reach agreement, but we want to be friendly and get the computer program to run, and so we agree upon a compromise set of factors suitable for it. We also manage to agree on each factor as it relates to TK. We enter the data into the computer. We run the program and it says 'you are right' and 'I am wrong'. What has the computer told us? (It isn't a trick question).
I don't think he's wonderful at all though. This is why the internet is so insane these days. You try to suggest that all these extreme views are a bit much and you're automatically cast onto the other extreme. I just said a few times that I feel he's broadly on the right lines and doesn't deserve all the nonsense thrown his way.
As for football, it's probably not that different to anything that's quantitatively measured. So if you're looking at share performance you can see what variables might predict future performance and then back test this with data to the point where, to a degree, you can predict future performance. so you do the same here. What data is important in winning football matches? Then break down from there. It's work in progress but far from impossible, particularly now when the data is so much more advanced.
It was a make believe scenario. My apologies for not being clearer about that.
The simple answer to my question was that, based upon our scores, the score for TK being wonderful added up to more points than the score for him not being wonderful. There are trickier answers to the question e.g. you are a better negotiator for TK than I am against him and so on. The point is the data put in by us is the data that will be pushed out to us. The computer simply adds up and makes calculations based on the input.
Good data is good data and bad data is bad data. Computers simply manipulate what is fed to them as in garbage in, garbage out.
No but your regression model should cover that. So Ferguson sold Jaap Stam because his tackling numbers were declining. That was a mistake because tackling wasn't a good variable and didn't impact on winning matches. However, these days there's so much data that you can build models which do correlate well with winning matches. So if you have a model whose data accurately explains winning football matches then you're golden.
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 04:21:32 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 27, 2019, 04:12:29 PM
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 03:17:32 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 27, 2019, 03:04:21 PM
Data has to be specific or precise to have any meaning at all to a human being e.g. You think TK is wonderful and I don't. Now we could set up a computer program to determine who out of the two of us is right or wrong. To do so we would sit down and determine what makes a human being wonderful. We could spend a lifetime arguing about the things that make a human being wonderful and not reach agreement, but we want to be friendly and get the computer program to run, and so we agree upon a compromise set of factors suitable for it. We also manage to agree on each factor as it relates to TK. We enter the data into the computer. We run the program and it says 'you are right' and 'I am wrong'. What has the computer told us? (It isn't a trick question).
I don't think he's wonderful at all though. This is why the internet is so insane these days. You try to suggest that all these extreme views are a bit much and you're automatically cast onto the other extreme. I just said a few times that I feel he's broadly on the right lines and doesn't deserve all the nonsense thrown his way.
As for football, it's probably not that different to anything that's quantitatively measured. So if you're looking at share performance you can see what variables might predict future performance and then back test this with data to the point where, to a degree, you can predict future performance. so you do the same here. What data is important in winning football matches? Then break down from there. It's work in progress but far from impossible, particularly now when the data is so much more advanced.
It was a make believe scenario. My apologies for not being clearer about that.
The simple answer to my question was that, based upon our scores, the score for TK being wonderful added up to more points than the score for him not being wonderful. There are trickier answers to the question e.g. you are a better negotiator for TK than I am against him and so on. The point is the data put in by us is the data that will be pushed out to us. The computer simply adds up and makes calculations based on the input.
Good data is good data and bad data is bad data. Computers simply manipulate what is fed to them as in garbage in, garbage out.
No but your regression model should cover that. So Ferguson sold Jaap Stam because his tackling numbers were declining. That was a mistake because tackling wasn't a good variable and didn't impact on winning matches. However, these days there's so much data that you can build models which do correlate well with winning matches. So if you have a model whose data accurately explains winning football matches then you're golden.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers on methods to accurately access outcomes of all sporting events, not just football. It is with the betting companies to have by far the best of predictive models to produce the odds that are essential to leaving them quids in. Those systems that attempt to 'manage outcomes' from past events (and all data is history since otherwise it is just made up via prediction or intuition) none of them achieve anything better than the respectability of the betting companies and most of them fall well below.
The problem is that game outcomes contain a random factor and computers don't do randomness any better than human's do. Effectively luck has always played a role in game outcomes and it is the control of that luck (reduction may be a better word) that is behind what coaches, players, and owners of football clubs try to achieve. The argument is that if you place enough strength on a football pitch to reduce the chances of conceding a goal and, at the same time, increase your number of chances to score, you should win more than you lose. That has always been true. What do data and computers do to change that? In the case of game management they can do very little. If a computer picked a side often enough (i.e hundreds of games) then we would know better what they are capable of, but would anybody seriously risk that?
An effective team is one that works. What makes it work? Nobody truly knows since hardly anybody can keep producing success over seriously long periods of time. So we can only guess at the factors that play the important factors in success to input in a computer algorithm which may then simply regress to a mean and fail. Data can provide more efficiency in reducing errors made in recruitment of suitable players, but it cannot eliminate the error factor entirely without solving the success issue, because there are also random factors in player recruitment - form, suspensions and injuries for example - which are almost impossible to manage effectively. You can attempt to reduce their likelihood but you cannot eliminate them.
Computers can help with reducing the disadvantages in any business mostly by handling stuff faster and better than long hand methods but they have no way of dealing with the randomness of our reality which can hit us all truly hard with just one of its infinitely variable outcomes.
Quote from: sunburywhite on June 27, 2019, 04:17:51 PM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on June 27, 2019, 02:51:34 PM
You cannot make a silk purse out of a sours ear.
or a sow's ear
No but probably a nice little bus pass holder though.
Quote from: Dr Quinzel on June 27, 2019, 02:50:07 PM
Quote from: I Ronic on June 27, 2019, 02:23:39 PM
In the past, if company A fancies buying company B it would look for an info it could find maybe look over company B's books given the chance. Now that would all be accessed via computers and.various analysts will crunch the data. That's all he's trying to do. To rule out as many negatives as possible. It's not 100% maybe somewhere round 50%. If he can get his %'s up then the Club succeeds. Whilst we have one of the richest men in the World holding the reins I'm happy to let him get on with it and try and make it work.
No problem with the use of analytics. Problem is with the man with a past history of failure doing so, and not doing it particularly well. Amongst other things.
Again we have the difference between us Brits and our cousins across the pond. Failure to them is all part of their journey to success. We do it differently here. We're great at the begining then keep failing afterwards.
Having read (painfully) these past 9 pages I've learned many things.
TK must have inspected Mawson's knee himself.
Most of us were happy when Seri was signed because Barca wanted him, don't ya know but his failure to impress was TK's fault.
TK can't take credit for Mitro, Odoi, Chambers, Bryan, Ayite, Babel or Johansen but is responsible for Noratveit, Fonte, Fosu-Mensah, Christi, Anguissa and Schurrle.
He IS responsible for all of these. He is in charge of the recruitment team and they pretty much failed. However, the medical team and the scouting department share the responsibility.
"Hey boss, I checked that knee and Mawson will be back at full strength in six weeks". "Hey boss, this kid Seri is a natural". "Anguissa has more potential than anyone in the world." "Noratveit will plug that defensive hole we have." yada yada yada
What I've really learned is that scapegoating is the real Fulham sport. Behind the ball we had Ali-Mac, Khan senior and now Khan junior. With the ball we have an endless list. Zamora, Baird, Ream, etc.
Anyway, automatic promotion this coming season. Parker will be a successful manager and Anguissa will come good. You heard it here first!
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 27, 2019, 03:27:23 PM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 27, 2019, 03:15:53 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 27, 2019, 01:58:09 AM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 26, 2019, 12:38:58 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 03:40:31 PM
I believe Tony Khan has the ability to source money from Fulham's owner better than other DoF. The ability to source money is Best Prediictor of DoF success. Even if Shahid Khan wasn't the owner, I have little doubt about Tony Khan's ability to source money probable from his family.
So let me try a question. assume TK's dad was broke, i.e. has no vast cash reserve... would TK be a good DoF based on his track record?
Maybe, if Fulham's owner was broke, we would have to employ the cheapest DoF in world football, which is Tony Khan. More seriously of course, Tony Khan is DoF because of his access to his dads money so what. Privellege goes to rich sons that is not a secret, I doubt David Cameron and Boris Johnson would have been Prime Ministers, if their rich parents sent them to the poshiest school in the world (i.e Eton College).
I am, truly struggling to follow any of your logic from the initial comments on the first page where you said TK would get a job elsewhere because he works for free. I had said that TK would not get a job anywhere else in football as DoF because he is not good enough and is only at Fulham because of his dad. IMO and many others, he is very poor at his job and we the supporters, who are powerless to stop this negligence being carried forward, and cough up to support the beloved team, are totally frustrated watching the same errors over and over since the Khan's took over. This would not be acceptable anywhere else.
I am not sure why you are incapable of just saying you agree that TK is clearly the wrong man for the job based on the evidence. And if you do not agree point me to the contrary evidence.
I believe that Tony Khan is the right man for the job, cause he is incredibly strong at obtaining funding and investor relations (the main investor was at his conception); we don't need a new DOF but we do need a better advisors particularly in the scouting team to compensate for his inexperience in that area.
Khan Junior is not very good at his job at all, and after listening to him talk or should I say stutter um and argh like somebody stuck at the front of the queue at a pound-shop, to find his credit card keeps getting rejected. All the questions were checked before he would answer them, that in itself was a farce, he got an easy ride in the name of propaganda, but he failed once again in that department as well.
I am even more convinced he is completely out of his depth. He is a total passenger and a liability, and it is at Fulhams expense.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on June 27, 2019, 07:15:44 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 27, 2019, 03:27:23 PM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 27, 2019, 03:15:53 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 27, 2019, 01:58:09 AM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 26, 2019, 12:38:58 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 03:40:31 PM
I believe Tony Khan has the ability to source money from Fulham's owner better than other DoF. The ability to source money is Best Prediictor of DoF success. Even if Shahid Khan wasn't the owner, I have little doubt about Tony Khan's ability to source money probable from his family.
So let me try a question. assume TK's dad was broke, i.e. has no vast cash reserve... would TK be a good DoF based on his track record?
Maybe, if Fulham's owner was broke, we would have to employ the cheapest DoF in world football, which is Tony Khan. More seriously of course, Tony Khan is DoF because of his access to his dads money so what. Privellege goes to rich sons that is not a secret, I doubt David Cameron and Boris Johnson would have been Prime Ministers, if their rich parents sent them to the poshiest school in the world (i.e Eton College).
I am, truly struggling to follow any of your logic from the initial comments on the first page where you said TK would get a job elsewhere because he works for free. I had said that TK would not get a job anywhere else in football as DoF because he is not good enough and is only at Fulham because of his dad. IMO and many others, he is very poor at his job and we the supporters, who are powerless to stop this negligence being carried forward, and cough up to support the beloved team, are totally frustrated watching the same errors over and over since the Khan's took over. This would not be acceptable anywhere else.
I am not sure why you are incapable of just saying you agree that TK is clearly the wrong man for the job based on the evidence. And if you do not agree point me to the contrary evidence.
I believe that Tony Khan is the right man for the job, cause he is incredibly strong at obtaining funding and investor relations (the main investor was at his conception); we don't need a new DOF but we do need a better advisors particularly in the scouting team to compensate for his inexperience in that area.
Khan Junior is not very good at his job at all, and after listening to him talk or should I say stutter um and argh like somebody stuck at the front of the queue at a pound-shop, to find his credit card keeps getting rejected. All the questions were checked before he would answer them, that in itself was a farce, he got an easy ride in the name of propaganda, but he failed once again in that department as well.
I am even more convinced he is completely out of his depth. He is a total passenger and a liability, and it is at Fulhams expense.
OK TK may not be good at his job so as Manager would you a) not go to the meetings to decide what players you sign and leave it to TK b) go to the meeting and have some input into the player that are being signed
Quote from: Nero on June 27, 2019, 07:23:59 PM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on June 27, 2019, 07:15:44 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 27, 2019, 03:27:23 PM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 27, 2019, 03:15:53 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 27, 2019, 01:58:09 AM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 26, 2019, 12:38:58 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 03:40:31 PM
I believe Tony Khan has the ability to source money from Fulham's owner better than other DoF. The ability to source money is Best Prediictor of DoF success. Even if Shahid Khan wasn't the owner, I have little doubt about Tony Khan's ability to source money probable from his family.
So let me try a question. assume TK's dad was broke, i.e. has no vast cash reserve... would TK be a good DoF based on his track record?
Maybe, if Fulham's owner was broke, we would have to employ the cheapest DoF in world football, which is Tony Khan. More seriously of course, Tony Khan is DoF because of his access to his dads money so what. Privellege goes to rich sons that is not a secret, I doubt David Cameron and Boris Johnson would have been Prime Ministers, if their rich parents sent them to the poshiest school in the world (i.e Eton College).
I am, truly struggling to follow any of your logic from the initial comments on the first page where you said TK would get a job elsewhere because he works for free. I had said that TK would not get a job anywhere else in football as DoF because he is not good enough and is only at Fulham because of his dad. IMO and many others, he is very poor at his job and we the supporters, who are powerless to stop this negligence being carried forward, and cough up to support the beloved team, are totally frustrated watching the same errors over and over since the Khan's took over. This would not be acceptable anywhere else.
I am not sure why you are incapable of just saying you agree that TK is clearly the wrong man for the job based on the evidence. And if you do not agree point me to the contrary evidence.
I believe that Tony Khan is the right man for the job, cause he is incredibly strong at obtaining funding and investor relations (the main investor was at his conception); we don't need a new DOF but we do need a better advisors particularly in the scouting team to compensate for his inexperience in that area.
Khan Junior is not very good at his job at all, and after listening to him talk or should I say stutter um and argh like somebody stuck at the front of the queue at a pound-shop, to find his credit card keeps getting rejected. All the questions were checked before he would answer them, that in itself was a farce, he got an easy ride in the name of propaganda, but he failed once again in that department as well.
I am even more convinced he is completely out of his depth. He is a total passenger and a liability, and it is at Fulhams expense.
OK TK may not be good at his job so as Manager would you a) not go to the meetings to decide what players you sign and leave it to TK b) go to the meeting and have some input into the player that are being signed
Neither, I would go for C). Tell him if he genuinely has the best interest of the club at heart. To do us all a massive favour and stay away from the meetings and leave it to the Professionals and to stop embarrassing himself and the club.
If he refused, I would go to his father and say, you have employed me to do my best for Fulham FC and get them promoted, and to give me the best chance of carrying out your wishes and instructions, keep your son away from a job that is for real men, not owners sons.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on June 27, 2019, 07:32:34 PM
Quote from: Nero on June 27, 2019, 07:23:59 PM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on June 27, 2019, 07:15:44 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 27, 2019, 03:27:23 PM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 27, 2019, 03:15:53 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 27, 2019, 01:58:09 AM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 26, 2019, 12:38:58 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 03:40:31 PM
I believe Tony Khan has the ability to source money from Fulham's owner better than other DoF. The ability to source money is Best Prediictor of DoF success. Even if Shahid Khan wasn't the owner, I have little doubt about Tony Khan's ability to source money probable from his family.
So let me try a question. assume TK's dad was broke, i.e. has no vast cash reserve... would TK be a good DoF based on his track record?
Maybe, if Fulham's owner was broke, we would have to employ the cheapest DoF in world football, which is Tony Khan. More seriously of course, Tony Khan is DoF because of his access to his dads money so what. Privellege goes to rich sons that is not a secret, I doubt David Cameron and Boris Johnson would have been Prime Ministers, if their rich parents sent them to the poshiest school in the world (i.e Eton College).
I am, truly struggling to follow any of your logic from the initial comments on the first page where you said TK would get a job elsewhere because he works for free. I had said that TK would not get a job anywhere else in football as DoF because he is not good enough and is only at Fulham because of his dad. IMO and many others, he is very poor at his job and we the supporters, who are powerless to stop this negligence being carried forward, and cough up to support the beloved team, are totally frustrated watching the same errors over and over since the Khan's took over. This would not be acceptable anywhere else.
I am not sure why you are incapable of just saying you agree that TK is clearly the wrong man for the job based on the evidence. And if you do not agree point me to the contrary evidence.
I believe that Tony Khan is the right man for the job, cause he is incredibly strong at obtaining funding and investor relations (the main investor was at his conception); we don't need a new DOF but we do need a better advisors particularly in the scouting team to compensate for his inexperience in that area.
Khan Junior is not very good at his job at all, and after listening to him talk or should I say stutter um and argh like somebody stuck at the front of the queue at a pound-shop, to find his credit card keeps getting rejected. All the questions were checked before he would answer them, that in itself was a farce, he got an easy ride in the name of propaganda, but he failed once again in that department as well.
I am even more convinced he is completely out of his depth. He is a total passenger and a liability, and it is at Fulhams expense.
OK TK may not be good at his job so as Manager would you a) not go to the meetings to decide what players you sign and leave it to TK b) go to the meeting and have some input into the player that are being signed
Neither, I would go for C). Tell him if he genuinely has the best interest of the club at heart. To do us all a massive favour and stay away from the meetings and leave it to the Professionals and to stop embarrassing himself and the club.
but he is a professional statistician, if the past manager couldn't be bothered to turn up and have a say in signings you can hardly blame TK for signing dross if hes not getting input from the manager, a bit like when the wife asks you to buy her a present it a dame sight easier if shes their dropping you hints about what she likes and doesn't. If the manager isnt there saying yes he will fit into my tactical style mistakes are bold t be made and TK gets the blame due the Manager being disinterested
Quote
There are literally hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers on methods to accurately access outcomes of all sporting events, not just football. It is with the betting companies to have by far the best of predictive models to produce the odds that are essential to leaving them quids in. Those systems that attempt to 'manage outcomes' from past events (and all data is history since otherwise it is just made up via prediction or intuition) none of them achieve anything better than the respectability of the betting companies and most of them fall well below.
Indeed, and there's a huge amount of 'talent' crossover between betting companies and football analytics. They're playing the same game here, attempting to get the best read on what makes for winning football. I do recommend the book I linked to earlier, it covers all of this in a lot of depth. However, the peer reviewed stuff wouldn't work for football: the real advances have come in the last couple of years and the good stuff is only available to those prepared to pay hefty consultancy fees. Anything good in the public tends to get gobbled up quite quickly and integrated into proprietary models.
Quote
The problem is that game outcomes contain a random factor and computers don't do randomness any better than human's do. Effectively luck has always played a role in game outcomes and it is the control of that luck (reduction may be a better word) that is behind what coaches, players, and owners of football clubs try to achieve. The argument is that if you place enough strength on a football pitch to reduce the chances of conceding a goal and, at the same time, increase your number of chances to score, you should win more than you lose. That has always been true. What do data and computers do to change that? In the case of game management they can do very little. If a computer picked a side often enough (i.e hundreds of games) then we would know better what they are capable of, but would anybody seriously risk that?
Not sure what point you're making here, but yes, randomness is a *huge* part of football (this is also covered in literature on the subject), much moreso than a lot of fans like to think (it's all about who wants it more isn't it?). So yes of course, the better team you play the less prone to randomness you are. The league table does lie, teams don't always get what they deserve, etc. Probably one reason Khan's quite optimistic is that he would believe that the team played at the very low end of expected variance, so if you play that season out 100 times there's a decent chance we escape relegation more often than not. But I know a lot of people will disagree. In any case, the bookies you have just lauded have us as second favourites to go up so they seem to agree that we have something here. Anyway, no, of course a computer won't pick a team - they don't even do that in baseball which has more or less been solved. You need the human side, and nobody has denied that at any point.
Quote
An effective team is one that works. What makes it work? Nobody truly knows since hardly anybody can keep producing success over seriously long periods of time. So we can only guess at the factors that play the important factors in success to input in a computer algorithm which may then simply regress to a mean and fail. Data can provide more efficiency in reducing errors made in recruitment of suitable players, but it cannot eliminate the error factor entirely without solving the success issue, because there are also random factors in player recruitment - form, suspensions and injuries for example - which are almost impossible to manage effectively. You can attempt to reduce their likelihood but you cannot eliminate them.
No, I don't know that anyone would disagree with anything here. But I think you're over-egging this. The data team can find players it thinks are good and the scouting team have a go too, and from that you emerge with players you're interested in. If you don't have data then you're reliant on agents or on the biases of human opinion, if you don't have scouts then you can miss other vital stuff. It's an important cross-check and this is one reason I stand up for Khan's methods. Other sports have repeatedly shown that embracing data is important, and really there's no reason not to use as much info as you can, is there? Again, the application of this is another story: there's no point in using data to find hidden gems if you then pay £30m for them. But needs must I suppose, and if Matt Targett was almost a £20m left back then Seri's worth what he cost. And as you point out, these things don't always work out, but that doesn't mean it was the wrong decision to purchase him at all - in baseball they tend to evaluate trades based on what knowledge was available at the time it was made. So here as best as anyone could tell, Seri was - and still probably is - a good quality premier league player..
Quote from: YankeeJim on June 27, 2019, 06:47:45 PM
Having read (painfully) these past 9 pages I've learned many things.
TK must have inspected Mawson's knee himself.
Most of us were happy when Seri was signed because Barca wanted him, don't ya know but his failure to impress was TK's fault.
TK can't take credit for Mitro, Odoi, Chambers, Bryan, Ayite, Babel or Johansen but is responsible for Noratveit, Fonte, Fosu-Mensah, Christi, Anguissa and Schurrle.
He IS responsible for all of these. He is in charge of the recruitment team and they pretty much failed. However, the medical team and the scouting department share the responsibility.
"Hey boss, I checked that knee and Mawson will be back at full strength in six weeks". "Hey boss, this kid Seri is a natural". "Anguissa has more potential than anyone in the world." "Noratveit will plug that defensive hole we have." yada yada yada
What I've really learned is that scapegoating is the real Fulham sport. Behind the ball we had Ali-Mac, Khan senior and now Khan junior. With the ball we have an endless list. Zamora, Baird, Ream, etc.
Anyway, automatic promotion this coming season. Parker will be a successful manager and Anguissa will come good. You heard it here first!
I love this Barca wanted him. If they'd really wanted him, they'd have got him. Yes they showed interest but never followed it up. Same with Chelsea.
Quote from: Penfold on June 27, 2019, 08:18:38 PM
Quote from: YankeeJim on June 27, 2019, 06:47:45 PM
Having read (painfully) these past 9 pages I've learned many things.
TK must have inspected Mawson's knee himself.
Most of us were happy when Seri was signed because Barca wanted him, don't ya know but his failure to impress was TK's fault.
TK can't take credit for Mitro, Odoi, Chambers, Bryan, Ayite, Babel or Johansen but is responsible for Noratveit, Fonte, Fosu-Mensah, Christi, Anguissa and Schurrle.
He IS responsible for all of these. He is in charge of the recruitment team and they pretty much failed. However, the medical team and the scouting department share the responsibility.
"Hey boss, I checked that knee and Mawson will be back at full strength in six weeks". "Hey boss, this kid Seri is a natural". "Anguissa has more potential than anyone in the world." "Noratveit will plug that defensive hole we have." yada yada yada
What I've really learned is that scapegoating is the real Fulham sport. Behind the ball we had Ali-Mac, Khan senior and now Khan junior. With the ball we have an endless list. Zamora, Baird, Ream, etc.
Anyway, automatic promotion this coming season. Parker will be a successful manager and Anguissa will come good. You heard it here first!
I love this Barca wanted him. If they'd really wanted him, they'd have got him. Yes they showed interest but never followed it up. Same with Chelsea.
Yes, the incomparable and exceedingly wise Tony Gale made exactly this point.
But again, why the absolutes? For all we know they were interested then ultimately decided he wasn't good enough. I don't see how this has anything to do with anything. Clearly he is the kind of player who might have been of interest but equally it might just have been an agent planted story. It's not evidence of anything either way.
Quote from: Nero on June 27, 2019, 07:43:51 PM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on June 27, 2019, 07:32:34 PM
Quote from: Nero on June 27, 2019, 07:23:59 PM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on June 27, 2019, 07:15:44 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 27, 2019, 03:27:23 PM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 27, 2019, 03:15:53 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 27, 2019, 01:58:09 AM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 26, 2019, 12:38:58 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 03:40:31 PM
I believe Tony Khan has the ability to source money from Fulham's owner better than other DoF. The ability to source money is Best Prediictor of DoF success. Even if Shahid Khan wasn't the owner, I have little doubt about Tony Khan's ability to source money probable from his family.
So let me try a question. assume TK's dad was broke, i.e. has no vast cash reserve... would TK be a good DoF based on his track record?
Maybe, if Fulham's owner was broke, we would have to employ the cheapest DoF in world football, which is Tony Khan. More seriously of course, Tony Khan is DoF because of his access to his dads money so what. Privellege goes to rich sons that is not a secret, I doubt David Cameron and Boris Johnson would have been Prime Ministers, if their rich parents sent them to the poshiest school in the world (i.e Eton College).
I am, truly struggling to follow any of your logic from the initial comments on the first page where you said TK would get a job elsewhere because he works for free. I had said that TK would not get a job anywhere else in football as DoF because he is not good enough and is only at Fulham because of his dad. IMO and many others, he is very poor at his job and we the supporters, who are powerless to stop this negligence being carried forward, and cough up to support the beloved team, are totally frustrated watching the same errors over and over since the Khan's took over. This would not be acceptable anywhere else.
I am not sure why you are incapable of just saying you agree that TK is clearly the wrong man for the job based on the evidence. And if you do not agree point me to the contrary evidence.
I believe that Tony Khan is the right man for the job, cause he is incredibly strong at obtaining funding and investor relations (the main investor was at his conception); we don't need a new DOF but we do need a better advisors particularly in the scouting team to compensate for his inexperience in that area.
Khan Junior is not very good at his job at all, and after listening to him talk or should I say stutter um and argh like somebody stuck at the front of the queue at a pound-shop, to find his credit card keeps getting rejected. All the questions were checked before he would answer them, that in itself was a farce, he got an easy ride in the name of propaganda, but he failed once again in that department as well.
I am even more convinced he is completely out of his depth. He is a total passenger and a liability, and it is at Fulhams expense.
OK TK may not be good at his job so as Manager would you a) not go to the meetings to decide what players you sign and leave it to TK b) go to the meeting and have some input into the player that are being signed
Neither, I would go for C). Tell him if he genuinely has the best interest of the club at heart. To do us all a massive favour and stay away from the meetings and leave it to the Professionals and to stop embarrassing himself and the club.
but he is a professional statistician, if the past manager couldn't be bothered to turn up and have a say in signings you can hardly blame TK for signing dross if hes not getting input from the manager, a bit like when the wife asks you to buy her a present it a dame sight easier if shes their dropping you hints about what she likes and doesn't. If the manager isnt there saying yes he will fit into my tactical style mistakes are bold t be made and TK gets the blame due the Manager being disinterested
The owners son quite rightly gets the blame as he is interfering in something he is not qualified to have a say. You say he is a professional statistician. But that does not qualify him to know what is a good player for Fulham, anymore than me. I am a professional Close Protection Officer, but that does not qualify me to interfere with a professional football manager/ coach. The fact is I am not even convinced he is very good at analysing stats, when you consider his poor mediocre record, let alone his negotiating and social skills, because after listening to him speaking in that podcast, and despite the advantages he has had in his fortunate education he has no doubt had, he does not come across as somebody who has the charm to sell a Life Belt to a drowning man. But as has already been said many times, he is the owners son, and because of that the blame should be shared by the man who sanctioned him to do a job he is nowhere near capable
Quote from: Nero on June 27, 2019, 07:43:51 PM
but he is a professional statistician
A professional statistician... Yeah, in the same way that if I decided to quit my job tomorrow and try to sell people cakes I'd baked, I'd immediately become a "professional baker"
Of course I'd know F.A. about baking. I'd have no qualifications or experience in relation to baking. But I could still tell people I was a professional baker
The point I making is if the previous Manager couldn't be bothered to turn up for scouting meeting then you cant blame TK as a non football man if he brought a few dudes, the person with the football knowledge who couldn't be bothered is more to blame. Lets see how he gets on with a Manager that feels it's important to have a say about the players coming into his squad and how they will fit in so we don't end up with a player disregarded as soon as he joins as the manager hasn't taken a shine to him. Like it or not Stats are playing a bigger part in football nowdays if not Optima wouldn't be in business
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 27, 2019, 03:27:23 PM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 27, 2019, 03:15:53 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 27, 2019, 01:58:09 AM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 26, 2019, 12:38:58 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 25, 2019, 03:40:31 PM
I believe Tony Khan has the ability to source money from Fulham's owner better than other DoF. The ability to source money is Best Prediictor of DoF success. Even if Shahid Khan wasn't the owner, I have little doubt about Tony Khan's ability to source money probable from his family.
So let me try a question. assume TK's dad was broke, i.e. has no vast cash reserve... would TK be a good DoF based on his track record?
Maybe, if Fulham's owner was broke, we would have to employ the cheapest DoF in world football, which is Tony Khan. More seriously of course, Tony Khan is DoF because of his access to his dads money so what. Privellege goes to rich sons that is not a secret, I doubt David Cameron and Boris Johnson would have been Prime Ministers, if their rich parents sent them to the poshiest school in the world (i.e Eton College).
I am, truly struggling to follow any of your logic from the initial comments on the first page where you said TK would get a job elsewhere because he works for free. I had said that TK would not get a job anywhere else in football as DoF because he is not good enough and is only at Fulham because of his dad. IMO and many others, he is very poor at his job and we the supporters, who are powerless to stop this negligence being carried forward, and cough up to support the beloved team, are totally frustrated watching the same errors over and over since the Khan's took over. This would not be acceptable anywhere else.
I am not sure why you are incapable of just saying you agree that TK is clearly the wrong man for the job based on the evidence. And if you do not agree point me to the contrary evidence.
I believe that Tony Khan is the right man for the job, cause he is incredibly strong at obtaining funding and investor relations (the main investor was at his conception); we don't need a new DOF but we do need a better advisors particularly in the scouting team to compensate for his inexperience in that area.
I said he would not get a job anywhere else in football without being his father's son and you have not told me what qualities he has. he is incredibly strong in obtaining investor funding is ridiculous. he can only do any of his job because his dad is a multi billionaire and gave him a cushy job and shed loads of money. He may have hidden talennts but being direcor of football at Fulham is not one of them. Wasting £100M would have seen him exiting any other team by Christmas last season..BUT we are obliged to keep the serial failure that you seem to endlessly defend no matter what. How bad do you think he needs to be before you say he is the wrong man.... Your AKA is the rational fan, maybe you should reconsider that.
Quote from: Statto on June 27, 2019, 09:40:07 PM
Quote from: Nero on June 27, 2019, 07:43:51 PM
but he is a professional statistician
A professional statistician... Yeah, in the same way that if I decided to quit my job tomorrow and try to sell people cakes I'd baked, I'd immediately become a "professional baker"
Of course I'd know F.A. about baking. I'd have no qualifications or experience in relation to baking. But I could still tell people I was a professional baker
If you bake cakes and sell them. Then you're a professional Baker.
We would then discuss on the forum how useless you were and the only reason you had a majimix was because your dad was minted.
You would dis customers on Facebook/twitter/instagram which would lead to more posts about how not only were you useless but plain rude as well.
Then you'd make a podcaste and those on here, with time on their hands would pick over your bones.
Quote from: ALG01 on June 27, 2019, 11:15:50 PM
I said he would not get a job anywhere else in football without being his father's son and you have not told me what qualities he has. he is incredibly strong in obtaining investor funding is ridiculous. he can only do any of his job because his dad is a multi billionaire and gave him a cushy job and shed loads of money. He may have hidden talennts but being direcor of football at Fulham is not one of them. Wasting £100M would have seen him exiting any other team by Christmas last season..BUT we are obliged to keep the serial failure that you seem to endlessly defend no matter what. How bad do you think he needs to be before you say he is the wrong man.... Your AKA is the rational fan, maybe you should reconsider that.
History of EventsWhen Tony Khan asked his father to be DoF without experience, SK said "yes, my son".
When Tony Khan as DoF asked his father to buy Mitrovoic, SK said "yes, my son".
When Tony Khan as DoF asked his father to give him £100m for players, SK said "yes, my son".
The Future DoFIf Fulham sacks Tony Khan, when new DoF asks for something then what will Shahid Khan say?
If we hire a new DoF and Shahid Khan says "yes to everything the DoF wants" things will be probably go better, at least until he makes a mistake and blows the money like most DoFs eventually do.
If we hire a new DoF and Shahid Khan says "no to everything the DoF wants" things will be very dark indeed. If you don't believe me this can happen, then ask a Newcastle or Sunderland or Blackburn or Bolton or Wigan or Leeds or Aston Villa fan.
As a Fan, "Yes, my son" is better than "No, my experienced DoF". I frankly see many advantages having a DoF that is a multi-billionaires son, especially if daddy will bail him out of his mistakes.
Why would Shad Khan employ a new DoF and then say no to his requests? That strikes me as an odd assumption that Rational has conveniently adopted in order to sustain a very tenuous line of argument.
Quote from: Twig on June 28, 2019, 02:23:43 AM
Why would Shad Khan employ a new DoF and then say no to his requests? That strikes me as an odd assumption that Rational has conveniently adopted in order to sustain a very tenuous line of argument.
Go ask Mike Ashley or Ellis Short, why a owner says no to a new DoF. Let's face it, if Tony Khan goes it because his father doesn't want to "yes, my son" anymore to his requests for money that he thinks will be wasted, but you hope he will continue to say "Yes, my DoF".
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 28, 2019, 02:39:58 AM
Quote from: Twig on June 28, 2019, 02:23:43 AM
Why would Shad Khan employ a new DoF and then say no to his requests? That strikes me as an odd assumption that Rational has conveniently adopted in order to sustain a very tenuous line of argument.
Go ask Mike Ashley or Ellis Short, why a owner says no to a new DoF. Let's face it, if Tony Khan goes it because his father doesn't want to "yes, my son" anymore to his requests for money that he thinks will be wasted, but you hope he will continue to say "Yes, my DoF".
Not a Rational Fan, Your defence of the owners son is weaker than Fulhams defence of their own penalty area last season. You have no defence, there is none so blind than those that cannot see.
As both you and Shahid Khan could learn something the great Brian Clough once said. "Never trust an animal without a jockey on its back ".
Quote from: YankeeJim on June 27, 2019, 06:47:45 PM
Having read (painfully) these past 9 pages I've learned many things.
TK must have inspected Mawson's knee himself.
Most of us were happy when Seri was signed because Barca wanted him, don't ya know but his failure to impress was TK's fault.
TK can't take credit for Mitro, Odoi, Chambers, Bryan, Ayite, Babel or Johansen but is responsible for Noratveit, Fonte, Fosu-Mensah, Christi, Anguissa and Schurrle.
He IS responsible for all of these. He is in charge of the recruitment team and they pretty much failed. However, the medical team and the scouting department share the responsibility.
"Hey boss, I checked that knee and Mawson will be back at full strength in six weeks". "Hey boss, this kid Seri is a natural". "Anguissa has more potential than anyone in the world." "Noratveit will plug that defensive hole we have." yada yada yada
What I've really learned is that scapegoating is the real Fulham sport. Behind the ball we had Ali-Mac, Khan senior and now Khan junior. With the ball we have an endless list. Zamora, Baird, Ream, etc.
Anyway, automatic promotion this coming season. Parker will be a successful manager and Anguissa will come good. You heard it here first!
Always knew you to be a good soothsayer / interpreter :005:
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on June 28, 2019, 04:10:48 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 28, 2019, 02:39:58 AM
Quote from: Twig on June 28, 2019, 02:23:43 AM
Why would Shad Khan employ a new DoF and then say no to his requests? That strikes me as an odd assumption that Rational has conveniently adopted in order to sustain a very tenuous line of argument.
Go ask Mike Ashley or Ellis Short, why a owner says no to a new DoF. Let's face it, if Tony Khan goes it because his father doesn't want to "yes, my son" anymore to his requests for money that he thinks will be wasted, but you hope he will continue to say "Yes, my DoF".
Not a Rational Fan, Your defence of the owners son is weaker than Fulhams defence of their own penalty area last season. You have no defence, there is none so blind than those that cannot see.
As both you and Shahid Khan could learn something the great Brian Clough once said. "Never trust an animal without a jockey on its back ".
When trying to make the point being someone's son shouldnt matter, you so cleverly quoted Jesus "There is none so blind than those that cannot see (Matthew 9:26-27)" to strength your argument and then to further strengthen your argument you quote Nigel Cloughs father.
For all you guys that think, if Fulham sack the DoF and the next DOF will be treated by SK like his adopted son, go for it. Besides, what could possibly go wrong with a DoF that is begging for money from SK and where SK could say either yes or no to giving more money.
If you think the club should go back to the days when Shahid Khan use to run the club without TKs help, great cause things were going so well back then.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 28, 2019, 06:27:15 AM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on June 28, 2019, 04:10:48 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 28, 2019, 02:39:58 AM
Quote from: Twig on June 28, 2019, 02:23:43 AM
Why would Shad Khan employ a new DoF and then say no to his requests? That strikes me as an odd assumption that Rational has conveniently adopted in order to sustain a very tenuous line of argument.
Go ask Mike Ashley or Ellis Short, why a owner says no to a new DoF. Let's face it, if Tony Khan goes it because his father doesn't want to "yes, my son" anymore to his requests for money that he thinks will be wasted, but you hope he will continue to say "Yes, my DoF".
Not a Rational Fan, Your defence of the owners son is weaker than Fulhams defence of their own penalty area last season. You have no defence, there is none so blind than those that cannot see.
As both you and Shahid Khan could learn something the great Brian Clough once said. "Never trust an animal without a jockey on its back ".
When trying to make the point being someone's son shouldnt matter, you so cleverly quoted Jesus "There is none so blind than those that cannot see (Matthew 9:26-27)" to strength your argument and then to further strengthen your argument you quote Nigel Cloughs father.
For all you guys that think, if Fulham sack the DoF and the next DOF will be treated by SK like his adopted son, go for it. Besides, what could possibly go wrong with a DoF that is begging for money from SK and where SK could say either yes or no to giving more money.
If you think the club should go back to the days when Shahid Khan use to run the club without TKs help, great cause things were going so well back then.
The quote is from Matthew in an English translation of the Bible, pedantic but, perhaps and importantly, meaningful when making attribution. You continue your diatribe with decreasing levels of material to back up anything you say. We can all attribute moments of failure and moments of glory to whoever we please, and nobody but ourselves can know the rationale behind those attributions unless we attempt to explain them. You can only keep quoting the money factor and nothing about TK's ability to use money wisely. In the podcast TK makes a reference to the Bryan/Targett situation which shows that if he had not spent money elsewhere he could have bought both to FFC. That opens up questions about the money blown away on other purchases which didn't work out very well. It is those blemishes on TK records - and there have been plenty of them - that provide ammunition for his detractors, and blow your arguments out of the water and yet you fail to come back with anything other than statistical material which is often not worth the paper it is written on. This is a thread about TK's podcast and what it revealed about him. Obviously that went way over your head.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 28, 2019, 06:27:15 AM
If you think the club should go back to the days when Shahid Khan use to run the club without TKs help, great cause things were going so well back then.
Can I just clarify, aside from the point you've mentioned about six thousand times that TK gets more money from his dad, are you suggesting TK is in any way responsible for things being better (albeit not much better because we're still in the same division) from 2016-2019 than they were from 2014-2016?
The podcast interview is worth a listen
TK comes across well - though clearly in a friendly environment
He is a fan and cares
Part of me prefers this and inexperience to and old pro who is just working for a pay cheque
Outtakes for me
- more focus on keeping players than buying
- AK and StefJo are part of next seasons plans
- he wants Mitro to stay
- no mention of Sess
- Parker is fully involved in all recruitment meetings
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 07:49:46 PM
Indeed, and there's a huge amount of 'talent' crossover between betting companies and football analytics. They're playing the same game here, attempting to get the best read on what makes for winning football. I do recommend the book I linked to earlier, it covers all of this in a lot of depth. However, the peer reviewed stuff wouldn't work for football: the real advances have come in the last couple of years and the good stuff is only available to those prepared to pay hefty consultancy fees. Anything good in the public tends to get gobbled up quite quickly and integrated into proprietary models.
Not sure what point you're making here, but yes, randomness is a *huge* part of football (this is also covered in literature on the subject), much moreso than a lot of fans like to think (it's all about who wants it more isn't it?). So yes of course, the better team you play the less prone to randomness you are. The league table does lie, teams don't always get what they deserve, etc. Probably one reason Khan's quite optimistic is that he would believe that the team played at the very low end of expected variance, so if you play that season out 100 times there's a decent chance we escape relegation more often than not. But I know a lot of people will disagree. In any case, the bookies you have just lauded have us as second favourites to go up so they seem to agree that we have something here. Anyway, no, of course a computer won't pick a team - they don't even do that in baseball which has more or less been solved. You need the human side, and nobody has denied that at any point.
No, I don't know that anyone would disagree with anything here. But I think you're over-egging this. The data team can find players it thinks are good and the scouting team have a go too, and from that you emerge with players you're interested in. If you don't have data then you're reliant on agents or on the biases of human opinion, if you don't have scouts then you can miss other vital stuff. It's an important cross-check and this is one reason I stand up for Khan's methods. Other sports have repeatedly shown that embracing data is important, and really there's no reason not to use as much info as you can, is there? Again, the application of this is another story: there's no point in using data to find hidden gems if you then pay £30m for them. But needs must I suppose, and if Matt Targett was almost a £20m left back then Seri's worth what he cost. And as you point out, these things don't always work out, but that doesn't mean it was the wrong decision to purchase him at all - in baseball they tend to evaluate trades based on what knowledge was available at the time it was made. So here as best as anyone could tell, Seri was - and still probably is - a good quality premier league player..
Now we are getting somewhere and that somewhere is just how computers can help us. Nowhere have I said we ignore them completely, indeed I have embraced their good sides in my working life and amazed people and industries along the way. I have also confounded some by telling them what they ask is simply impossible to achieve or maintain without x,y, and z, and explain to them how and why they could resolve their problems in better ways e.g. have better manual systems which can then be shifted to computers with guarantees of improvements in productivity, efficiency and staff satisfaction.
A computer in the hands of a fool will not be anything other than a computer in the hands of a fool. It is a dumb machine which, with or without its human interface, will only do what its programmer has instructed and told it to do. Even its so called learning is a program written by a human being and so it is not learning at all - it is retaining and amending what it has been told to retain and amend. If just one bit of that instruction has a fatal error then it will one day crash, or, worse, it will be in the middle of something very major and output wrong pieces of data until a human being realises there is a bug.
You are the one doing the over-egging my friend.
Quote from: toshes mate on June 28, 2019, 08:33:07 AM
Quote from: wormbridge on June 27, 2019, 07:49:46 PM
Indeed, and there's a huge amount of 'talent' crossover between betting companies and football analytics. They're playing the same game here, attempting to get the best read on what makes for winning football. I do recommend the book I linked to earlier, it covers all of this in a lot of depth. However, the peer reviewed stuff wouldn't work for football: the real advances have come in the last couple of years and the good stuff is only available to those prepared to pay hefty consultancy fees. Anything good in the public tends to get gobbled up quite quickly and integrated into proprietary models.
Not sure what point you're making here, but yes, randomness is a *huge* part of football (this is also covered in literature on the subject), much moreso than a lot of fans like to think (it's all about who wants it more isn't it?). So yes of course, the better team you play the less prone to randomness you are. The league table does lie, teams don't always get what they deserve, etc. Probably one reason Khan's quite optimistic is that he would believe that the team played at the very low end of expected variance, so if you play that season out 100 times there's a decent chance we escape relegation more often than not. But I know a lot of people will disagree. In any case, the bookies you have just lauded have us as second favourites to go up so they seem to agree that we have something here. Anyway, no, of course a computer won't pick a team - they don't even do that in baseball which has more or less been solved. You need the human side, and nobody has denied that at any point.
No, I don't know that anyone would disagree with anything here. But I think you're over-egging this. The data team can find players it thinks are good and the scouting team have a go too, and from that you emerge with players you're interested in. If you don't have data then you're reliant on agents or on the biases of human opinion, if you don't have scouts then you can miss other vital stuff. It's an important cross-check and this is one reason I stand up for Khan's methods. Other sports have repeatedly shown that embracing data is important, and really there's no reason not to use as much info as you can, is there? Again, the application of this is another story: there's no point in using data to find hidden gems if you then pay £30m for them. But needs must I suppose, and if Matt Targett was almost a £20m left back then Seri's worth what he cost. And as you point out, these things don't always work out, but that doesn't mean it was the wrong decision to purchase him at all - in baseball they tend to evaluate trades based on what knowledge was available at the time it was made. So here as best as anyone could tell, Seri was - and still probably is - a good quality premier league player..
Now we are getting somewhere and that somewhere is just how computers can help us. Nowhere have I said we ignore them completely, indeed I have embraced their good sides in my working life and amazed people and industries along the way. I have also confounded some by telling them what they ask is simply impossible to achieve or maintain without x,y, and z, and explain to them how and why they could resolve their problems in better ways e.g. have better manual systems which can then be shifted to computers with guarantees of improvements in productivity, efficiency and staff satisfaction.
A computer in the hands of a fool will not be anything other than a computer in the hands of a fool. It is a dumb machine which, with or without its human interface, will only do what its programmer has instructed and told it to do. Even its so called learning is a program written by a human being and so it is not learning at all - it is retaining and amending what it has been told to retain and amend. If just one bit of that instruction has a fatal error then it will one day crash, or, worse, it will be in the middle of something very major and output wrong pieces of data until a human being realises there is a bug.
You are the one doing the over-egging my friend.
Yes, but this is where the statistics come in. I'm assuming you're aware of regression models. If Tony's model gives him very high r squared values when he looks at his data points and real life points then it's no longer about him, it's a statistical validation that the model works (with all the caveats noted earlier). What I'm saying – and I think this doesn't need saying, but just in case – is that these models aren't subjective. He's not writing a programme, he's not choosing anything, the data either (which he of course has to prepare, so there's that) either "works" or it doesn't. So if he has a value of .2 for goalkeepers he knows he has *something* but not really enough. But if his model gives him a value of .95 for centre forwards he's going to back that against anyone's opinion.
In the olden days analytics was somewhat as I think people here think it is. I remember getting my first Opta annual in the 90s and they rated all the players. The best defenders were those at Sheffield Wednesday or something stupid because they'd made the most clearances, the most headers, etc. Of course that was nonsense – they were just getting more opportunities to do those things because they were the worst team in the league! That was obvious. But the game's come an awfully long way since then and while there's a lot of push-back from "football men" who have been in the game all their lives so don't need a computer to tell them what they already know (this happened in baseball, of course, and most of the old baseball men either adapted or had to find another job in the end), it works. Liverpool have been at the leading edge of this for some time. City are as well. Brentford have really bought in and it's transformed the club. Some of this is in finding players, some of it is in finding better ways to do things (e.g. set pieces as the biggest under-exploited way to improve fast, which Liverpool have made the most of).
It's incredibly sophisticated and while there's a lot to do, it works. Honestly, I really recommend reading up on this as a lot of people's misgivings are explained away easily enough. You seem to have half a foot in all this so I think you might find it enlightening. So while Tony and co might not be at the leading edge their 100% doing the right thing in trying. It's not just him on a spreadsheet deciding what he thinks are the most important stats ("Sign all the players with high assist numbers!"), those times are long gone.
Quote from: wormbridge on June 28, 2019, 09:17:21 AM
Yes, but this is where the statistics come in. I'm assuming you're aware of regression models. If Tony's model gives him very high r squared values when he looks at his data points and real life points then it's no longer about him, it's a statistical validation that the model works (with all the caveats noted earlier). What I'm saying – and I think this doesn't need saying, but just in case – is that these models aren't subjective. He's not writing a programme, he's not choosing anything, the data either (which he of course has to prepare, so there's that) either "works" or it doesn't. So if he has a value of .2 for goalkeepers he knows he has *something* but not really enough. But if his model gives him a value of .95 for centre forwards he's going to back that against anyone's opinion.
In the olden days analytics was somewhat as I think people here think it is. I remember getting my first Opta annual in the 90s and they rated all the players. The best defenders were those at Sheffield Wednesday or something stupid because they'd made the most clearances, the most headers, etc. Of course that was nonsense – they were just getting more opportunities to do those things because they were the worst team in the league! That was obvious. But the game's come an awfully long way since then and while there's a lot of push-back from "football men" who have been in the game all their lives so don't need a computer to tell them what they already know (this happened in baseball, of course, and most of the old baseball men either adapted or had to find another job in the end), it works. Liverpool have been at the leading edge of this for some time. City are as well. Brentford have really bought in and it's transformed the club. Some of this is in finding players, some of it is in finding better ways to do things (e.g. set pieces as the biggest under-exploited way to improve fast, which Liverpool have made the most of).
It's incredibly sophisticated and while there's a lot to do, it works. Honestly, I really recommend reading up on this as a lot of people's misgivings are explained away easily enough. You seem to have half a foot in all this so I think you might find it enlightening. So while Tony and co might not be at the leading edge their 100% doing the right thing in trying. It's not just him on a spreadsheet deciding what he thinks are the most important stats ("Sign all the players with high assist numbers!"), those times are long gone.
You should not patronise people by asking them to read stuff when you do not know what they have already read and already know. As I've already said there is loads of stuff this year alone which proves beyond any shadow of a doubt what Girolamo Cardano discovered over 500 years ago that if a random event has several equally likely outcomes the chance of any individual outcome occurring is equal to the proportion of that outcome to all possible outcomes. In the gambling world that meant that if you could foster a method of of finding odds better than 0.5 probability of winning then eventually you would start to make a profit if you played the same game the same way for long enough (the law of big numbers). That is why betting companies are satisfied with statistical systems that push their probability of success over that 0.5 point. They can then rig the game in their favour and make money. Finding a player is about rigging the game in your favour over a very long period of time (the law of big numbers) and it suffers from the anomalies that will occur over shorter period (still sometimes big numbers even with a heads/tails sequence) which means you can never guarantee success in the short term which is what sport is. You are simply reducing the chances of the system making errors but you cannot rig the outcomes because they will always be random.
I am not going to take up anymore time on this subject because we all have to learn the hard way, as I have done so many times, and, as unfortunate as that may be, TK and you must do the same.
Quote from: toshes mate on June 28, 2019, 10:02:30 AM
Quote from: wormbridge on June 28, 2019, 09:17:21 AM
Yes, but this is where the statistics come in. I'm assuming you're aware of regression models. If Tony's model gives him very high r squared values when he looks at his data points and real life points then it's no longer about him, it's a statistical validation that the model works (with all the caveats noted earlier). What I'm saying – and I think this doesn't need saying, but just in case – is that these models aren't subjective. He's not writing a programme, he's not choosing anything, the data either (which he of course has to prepare, so there's that) either "works" or it doesn't. So if he has a value of .2 for goalkeepers he knows he has *something* but not really enough. But if his model gives him a value of .95 for centre forwards he's going to back that against anyone's opinion.
In the olden days analytics was somewhat as I think people here think it is. I remember getting my first Opta annual in the 90s and they rated all the players. The best defenders were those at Sheffield Wednesday or something stupid because they'd made the most clearances, the most headers, etc. Of course that was nonsense – they were just getting more opportunities to do those things because they were the worst team in the league! That was obvious. But the game's come an awfully long way since then and while there's a lot of push-back from "football men" who have been in the game all their lives so don't need a computer to tell them what they already know (this happened in baseball, of course, and most of the old baseball men either adapted or had to find another job in the end), it works. Liverpool have been at the leading edge of this for some time. City are as well. Brentford have really bought in and it's transformed the club. Some of this is in finding players, some of it is in finding better ways to do things (e.g. set pieces as the biggest under-exploited way to improve fast, which Liverpool have made the most of).
It's incredibly sophisticated and while there's a lot to do, it works. Honestly, I really recommend reading up on this as a lot of people's misgivings are explained away easily enough. You seem to have half a foot in all this so I think you might find it enlightening. So while Tony and co might not be at the leading edge their 100% doing the right thing in trying. It's not just him on a spreadsheet deciding what he thinks are the most important stats ("Sign all the players with high assist numbers!"), those times are long gone.
You should not patronise people by asking them to read stuff when you do not know what they have already read and already know. As I've already said there is loads of stuff this year alone which proves beyond any shadow of a doubt what Girolamo Cardano discovered over 500 years ago that if a random event has several equally likely outcomes the chance of any individual outcome occurring is equal to the proportion of that outcome to all possible outcomes. In the gambling world that meant that if you could foster a method of of finding odds better than 0.5 probability of winning then eventually you would start to make a profit if you played the same game the same way for long enough (the law of big numbers). That is why betting companies are satisfied with statistical systems that push their probability of success over that 0.5 point. They can then rig the game in their favour and make money. Finding a player is about rigging the game in your favour over a very long period of time (the law of big numbers) and it suffers from the anomalies that will occur over shorter period (still sometimes big numbers even with a heads/tails sequence) which means you can never guarantee success in the short term which is what sport is. You are simply reducing the chances of the system making errors but you cannot rig the outcomes because they will always be random.
I am not going to take up anymore time on this subject because we all have to learn the hard way, as I have done so many times, and, as unfortunate as that may be, TK and you must do the same.
Now who's patronising? I get that you have background in computing but there's so much of this that's new and which applies to football which is just so interesting, that's all. I was only making a book recommendation because the book in question covers so many of the misgivings you and other raise. I'm not sure how we might go about presuming to know more about this than specialists who have worked in the gambling industry and moved into football (as the Brentford owner has) but this is where we seem to find ourselves.
It's really not a question of me and Tony Khan learning the hard way (!), the data revolution is happening in all sports and a repeated lesson from this is that you either evolve and make the most of the wealth of data available and the advantages this brings, or you get left behind. Liverpool are at the leading edge. So are City. Fulham are trying to work it out, too. That's a good thing, surely.
Quote from: I Ronic on June 27, 2019, 06:40:48 PM
Quote from: Dr Quinzel on June 27, 2019, 02:50:07 PM
Quote from: I Ronic on June 27, 2019, 02:23:39 PM
In the past, if company A fancies buying company B it would look for an info it could find maybe look over company B's books given the chance. Now that would all be accessed via computers and.various analysts will crunch the data. That's all he's trying to do. To rule out as many negatives as possible. It's not 100% maybe somewhere round 50%. If he can get his %'s up then the Club succeeds. Whilst we have one of the richest men in the World holding the reins I'm happy to let him get on with it and try and make it work.
No problem with the use of analytics. Problem is with the man with a past history of failure doing so, and not doing it particularly well. Amongst other things.
Again we have the difference between us Brits and our cousins across the pond. Failure to them is all part of their journey to success. We do it differently here. We're great at the begining then keep failing afterwards.
Our sport doesn't reward failure, so there's bound to be a difference.
Quote from: wormbridge on June 28, 2019, 10:37:21 AM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 28, 2019, 10:02:30 AM
Quote from: wormbridge on June 28, 2019, 09:17:21 AM
Yes, but this is where the statistics come in. I'm assuming you're aware of regression models. If Tony's model gives him very high r squared values when he looks at his data points and real life points then it's no longer about him, it's a statistical validation that the model works (with all the caveats noted earlier). What I'm saying – and I think this doesn't need saying, but just in case – is that these models aren't subjective. He's not writing a programme, he's not choosing anything, the data either (which he of course has to prepare, so there's that) either "works" or it doesn't. So if he has a value of .2 for goalkeepers he knows he has *something* but not really enough. But if his model gives him a value of .95 for centre forwards he's going to back that against anyone's opinion.
In the olden days analytics was somewhat as I think people here think it is. I remember getting my first Opta annual in the 90s and they rated all the players. The best defenders were those at Sheffield Wednesday or something stupid because they'd made the most clearances, the most headers, etc. Of course that was nonsense – they were just getting more opportunities to do those things because they were the worst team in the league! That was obvious. But the game's come an awfully long way since then and while there's a lot of push-back from "football men" who have been in the game all their lives so don't need a computer to tell them what they already know (this happened in baseball, of course, and most of the old baseball men either adapted or had to find another job in the end), it works. Liverpool have been at the leading edge of this for some time. City are as well. Brentford have really bought in and it's transformed the club. Some of this is in finding players, some of it is in finding better ways to do things (e.g. set pieces as the biggest under-exploited way to improve fast, which Liverpool have made the most of).
It's incredibly sophisticated and while there's a lot to do, it works. Honestly, I really recommend reading up on this as a lot of people's misgivings are explained away easily enough. You seem to have half a foot in all this so I think you might find it enlightening. So while Tony and co might not be at the leading edge their 100% doing the right thing in trying. It's not just him on a spreadsheet deciding what he thinks are the most important stats ("Sign all the players with high assist numbers!"), those times are long gone.
You should not patronise people by asking them to read stuff when you do not know what they have already read and already know. As I've already said there is loads of stuff this year alone which proves beyond any shadow of a doubt what Girolamo Cardano discovered over 500 years ago that if a random event has several equally likely outcomes the chance of any individual outcome occurring is equal to the proportion of that outcome to all possible outcomes. In the gambling world that meant that if you could foster a method of of finding odds better than 0.5 probability of winning then eventually you would start to make a profit if you played the same game the same way for long enough (the law of big numbers). That is why betting companies are satisfied with statistical systems that push their probability of success over that 0.5 point. They can then rig the game in their favour and make money. Finding a player is about rigging the game in your favour over a very long period of time (the law of big numbers) and it suffers from the anomalies that will occur over shorter period (still sometimes big numbers even with a heads/tails sequence) which means you can never guarantee success in the short term which is what sport is. You are simply reducing the chances of the system making errors but you cannot rig the outcomes because they will always be random.
I am not going to take up anymore time on this subject because we all have to learn the hard way, as I have done so many times, and, as unfortunate as that may be, TK and you must do the same.
Now who's patronising? I get that you have background in computing but there's so much of this that's new and which applies to football which is just so interesting, that's all. I was only making a book recommendation because the book in question covers so many of the misgivings you and other raise. I'm not sure how we might go about presuming to know more about this than specialists who have worked in the gambling industry and moved into football (as the Brentford owner has) but this is where we seem to find ourselves.
It's really not a question of me and Tony Khan learning the hard way (!), the data revolution is happening in all sports and a repeated lesson from this is that you either evolve and make the most of the wealth of data available and the advantages this brings, or you get left behind. Liverpool are at the leading edge. So are City. Fulham are trying to work it out, too. That's a good thing, surely.
I am not patronising you at all. All you have done is produce spiel without one shred of evidence that the use of a computer has actually improved recruitment or game management. The reasons for that are obvious since no game* can be played twice, once with computer aid and once without, to test the efficacy of either or both.
*by game I mean the process of staffing and running a sporting unit over a long period of time which is the only test that can actually prove what the benefits are. Cardano made his point with not a machine in sight.
Quote from: Nero on June 27, 2019, 11:14:06 PM
The point I making is if the previous Manager couldn't be bothered to turn up for scouting meeting then you cant blame TK as a non football man if he brought a few dudes, the person with the football knowledge who couldn't be bothered is more to blame. Lets see how he gets on with a Manager that feels it's important to have a say about the players coming into his squad and how they will fit in so we don't end up with a player disregarded as soon as he joins as the manager hasn't taken a shine to him. Like it or not Stats are playing a bigger part in football nowdays if not Optima wouldn't be in business
Would you attend a meeting where you felt your view and opinion was not listened to?
I did find that an eyebrow raising comment, and to be honest, I'm not sure I believe it - to suggest Slav and Ranieiri didn't either attend ANY scouting meeting? Come on. That's a stretch, surely?
I took a lot from the interview which i thought was well carried out.
The main thing for me was how the statistics job was to look at the player in terms of "value".
The aim is clear to increase your squads "value" thus the theory being that if your squad has a higher value it will perform better, you have to agree that since 2016 we are in a better position that we were in this regard.
I think the club have astute business people at the club and is in safe hands in terms of finance.
As to what we care about which is results i think the conflict comes when you make a business decision on a player to increase the value of the squad rather than a short term option which will get results. He talks about Parera with how getting stefjo and piazon was better decision in terms of value.
But on the flip side he did the same opposite thing with Mitro which would of been against the model but got us promoted.
I think when you look at these two examples it shows how difficult a balancing act it is to get these things right and overall would say he is doing good a job and seems to apply a certain logic to his work and has a plan which has seen us promoted and has the squad in a better shape than when he started.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 28, 2019, 01:38:33 AM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 27, 2019, 11:15:50 PM
I said he would not get a job anywhere else in football without being his father's son and you have not told me what qualities he has. he is incredibly strong in obtaining investor funding is ridiculous. he can only do any of his job because his dad is a multi billionaire and gave him a cushy job and shed loads of money. He may have hidden talennts but being direcor of football at Fulham is not one of them. Wasting £100M would have seen him exiting any other team by Christmas last season..BUT we are obliged to keep the serial failure that you seem to endlessly defend no matter what. How bad do you think he needs to be before you say he is the wrong man.... Your AKA is the rational fan, maybe you should reconsider that.
History of Events
When Tony Khan asked his father to be DoF without experience, SK said "yes, my son".
When Tony Khan as DoF asked his father to buy Mitrovoic, SK said "yes, my son".
When Tony Khan as DoF asked his father to give him £100m for players, SK said "yes, my son".
The Future DoF
If Fulham sacks Tony Khan, when new DoF asks for something then what will Shahid Khan say?
If we hire a new DoF and Shahid Khan says "yes to everything the DoF wants" things will be probably go better, at least until he makes a mistake and blows the money like most DoFs eventually do.
If we hire a new DoF and Shahid Khan says "no to everything the DoF wants" things will be very dark indeed. If you don't believe me this can happen, then ask a Newcastle or Sunderland or Blackburn or Bolton or Wigan or Leeds or Aston Villa fan.
As a Fan, "Yes, my son" is better than "No, my experienced DoF". I frankly see many advantages having a DoF that is a multi-billionaires son, especially if daddy will bail him out of his mistakes.
Well, I do understand what you are saying this time and strangely there is a perverse logic to your post.
Personally i do not agree that is the correct approach.
My whole issue is does TK have what it takes to succeed as DOF at Fulham and so far the answer is clearly no.
I know you are unable/unwilling to to bring yourself to say TK has no talent for the job and I can only repeat, without his father being a very rich man he would not have the job and his lack of talent has cost us dear in so many ways. Imagine he was talented and had access to his dad's money, we would be top 6 in the prem, not relegated.
Enjoyed the pod for what it was. It was time to get to know Tony Khan and what goes on behind the scenes. He was candid and open about it, and I feel better about him there alongside his team + Scott Parker being involved to further solidify the decision making.
This thread has been good as well, and having multiple opinions is never a bad thing. We are not always going to agree, and it's no surprise the hottest topic of the last couple of years supports that.
My general thoughts is that first, "A man needing convincing, will always remain unconvinced" is a strong theme. It works both ways whether you are for TK or against him. Most minds are made up and aren't budging regardless what TK said, which I've said before...he simply can't win. Some say he doesn't have experience in his role, yet he's been doing this since 2016, right? I'm not sure it's valid to deny him of that any longer, and the determination of what should or shouldn't happen to him is based on a matter of third party opinions.
Staying in my lane, I do like what he said about how tactics changed dramatically when Mawson and AK made their exit of the starting lineup. Ranieri wanted to play very direct, and all the work of the defense centered around Mawson, while the counterattacks centered around someone getting behind the defense via AK. When they lost their spots via injury/incident, the plan was affected more significantly that I had given it credit for at first. I did not know that AK was that vital at the time, however I do think Mawson was in the heart of everything we aimed to accomplish.
I wish he had talked more about Slav's exit and the transition to Ranieri, or more about Seri and Anguissa signings. However, I can understand the sensitivity and the intent to keep the team spirits up currently. I just would've liked to hear his thoughts overall about those topics. I think the transition from Slav to Ranieri was much more detrimental than recruiting alone, in particular because Ranieri tried to make Seri into less of a playmaker and more of a hard-nosed defensive midfielder.
Overall, happy the fulhamish pod got to interview him - and was glad that Tony opened up about a lot of things we've been thinking about for a while.
Noticed a lot of people, and the most recent poster above me as an example, saying TK was 'open' or 'candid'.
It's a minor point, but is it really either of those things if certain questions are off of the table?
Everything was very soft (and I don't expect Fulhamish to have forced anything - they have to look after themselves and future access) and scripted, so the candidness only came on subjects that TK was willing to be candid about, which to my mind doesn't really make it the interview people are labelling it as at all.
Quote from: Dr Quinzel on June 28, 2019, 01:13:31 PM
Noticed a lot of people, and the most recent poster above me as an example, saying TK was 'open' or 'candid'.
It's a minor point, but is it really either of those things if certain questions are off of the table?
Everything was very soft (and I don't expect Fulhamish to have forced anything - they have to look after themselves and future access) and scripted, so the candidness only came on subjects that TK was willing to be candid about, which to my mind doesn't really make it the interview people are labelling it as at all.
What wasn't he candid about? He said last season he was a failure in recruitment. But he defended his record until then. Not sure it came over as scripted more than the interviewers were prepared. What harder questions would have been asked that would have made you happier with the content? Certainly he was happy to answer these questions which is more than any other MD or official has done recently. He did make some startling errors, appointing Raneiri whose philosophy never fitted this team with no defenders of quality. He also admitted mistake with other players that didn't work out. As far as it went it was as candid as any interview could have been without throwing out accusations and recriminations.
Quote from: Lighthouse on June 28, 2019, 02:12:29 PM
Quote from: Dr Quinzel on June 28, 2019, 01:13:31 PM
Noticed a lot of people, and the most recent poster above me as an example, saying TK was 'open' or 'candid'.
It's a minor point, but is it really either of those things if certain questions are off of the table?
Everything was very soft (and I don't expect Fulhamish to have forced anything - they have to look after themselves and future access) and scripted, so the candidness only came on subjects that TK was willing to be candid about, which to my mind doesn't really make it the interview people are labelling it as at all.
What wasn't he candid about? He said last season he was a failure in recruitment. But he defended his record until then. Not sure it came over as scripted more than the interviewers were prepared. What harder questions would have been asked that would have made you happier with the content? Certainly he was happy to answer these questions which is more than any other MD or official has done recently. He did make some startling errors, appointing Raneiri whose philosophy never fitted this team with no defenders of quality. He also admitted mistake with other players that didn't work out. As far as it went it was as candid as any interview could have been without throwing out accusations and recriminations.
They weren't allowed to ask about Sess for example. They weren't able to push back on his answers where often they needed further questioning to narrow things down, or at least a retort as to the appropriateness of the answer. So there was a level of control over the questions. Anytime questions are screened in advance, I can't consider an interview to be 'open' / 'candid' or whatever else someone may phrase that as. Do you follow what I mean?
Candid actually means caught off guard or unprepared and so, if the RS prognosis is correct regardless of reasons of privacy or sensitivity, then as I suggested earlier he could have easily had a prepared and appropriately worded non-committal answer. Likewise his manner was one of being happy as long as he was within his own comfort zone throughout although rather heavy on the voice lead hums and arrs for most of the time. The reason I became interested in his 'love my work' passages was because he revealed someone who valued his work more than his friendships and that is where the interview did at last deepen if only very briefly.
There were also a lot of things he didn't have to say, but chose to. Many times he started sentences with "People don't know this, but..." - I think that's what actually caught me off guard, and was pleasant surprise of him being genuine to the pod guys and listeners.
Quote from: toshes mate on June 28, 2019, 02:30:51 PM
Candid actually means caught off guard or unprepared and so, if the RS prognosis is correct regardless of reasons of privacy or sensitivity, then as I suggested earlier he could have easily had a prepared and appropriately worded non-committal answer. Likewise his manner was one of being happy as long as he was within his own comfort zone throughout although rather heavy on the voice lead hums and arrs for most of the time. The reason I became interested in his 'love my work' passages was because he revealed someone who valued his work more than his friendships and that is where the interview did at last deepen if only very briefly.
Fair - I didn't want to get caught up in the words, but more the idea that it is was a laid bare, completely open interview, when to me, it wasn't really.
Quote from: Dr Quinzel on June 28, 2019, 02:22:57 PM
Quote from: Lighthouse on June 28, 2019, 02:12:29 PM
Quote from: Dr Quinzel on June 28, 2019, 01:13:31 PM
Noticed a lot of people, and the most recent poster above me as an example, saying TK was 'open' or 'candid'.
It's a minor point, but is it really either of those things if certain questions are off of the table?
Everything was very soft (and I don't expect Fulhamish to have forced anything - they have to look after themselves and future access) and scripted, so the candidness only came on subjects that TK was willing to be candid about, which to my mind doesn't really make it the interview people are labelling it as at all.
What wasn't he candid about? He said last season he was a failure in recruitment. But he defended his record until then. Not sure it came over as scripted more than the interviewers were prepared. What harder questions would have been asked that would have made you happier with the content? Certainly he was happy to answer these questions which is more than any other MD or official has done recently. He did make some startling errors, appointing Raneiri whose philosophy never fitted this team with no defenders of quality. He also admitted mistake with other players that didn't work out. As far as it went it was as candid as any interview could have been without throwing out accusations and recriminations.
They weren't allowed to ask about Sess for example. They weren't able to push back on his answers where often they needed further questioning to narrow things down, or at least a retort as to the appropriateness of the answer. So there was a level of control over the questions. Anytime questions are screened in advance, I can't consider an interview to be 'open' / 'candid' or whatever else someone may phrase that as. Do you follow what I mean?
I understand your point I just don't know what else he could have said or what other questions could have been asked. He named names of players that didn't work out, something that was unusual to me and candid. As for not being allowed to ask about Sess? What could they have asked about a player who is in the middle of contract negotiations and may or may not be looking for a move? It is obvious we want to keep him but at the right price foolish not to let him go. I think he was as open as he could have been. I have no idea if the questions were screened or agreed in advance. But what was asked appeared interesting and as candid as any interview I have heard featuring a club representative. However I think the take on it depends on our preconceived ideas or belief in those involved. It didn't feel like a gloss or puff peace to me. However I take your point that it could well have been a staged event. It didn't feel like it to me.
Agree with lighthouse. Cant see what else he could have said.
Quote from: colinwhite on June 28, 2019, 05:04:37 PM
Agree with lighthouse. Cant see what else he could have said.
As someone who isn't satisfied with his employment or existence at the club, I suppose I have more questions than others maybe.
Quote from: Penfold on June 27, 2019, 08:18:38 PM
Quote from: YankeeJim on June 27, 2019, 06:47:45 PM
Having read (painfully) these past 9 pages I've learned many things.
TK must have inspected Mawson's knee himself.
Most of us were happy when Seri was signed because Barca wanted him, don't ya know but his failure to impress was TK's fault.
TK can't take credit for Mitro, Odoi, Chambers, Bryan, Ayite, Babel or Johansen but is responsible for Noratveit, Fonte, Fosu-Mensah, Christi, Anguissa and Schurrle.
He IS responsible for all of these. He is in charge of the recruitment team and they pretty much failed. However, the medical team and the scouting department share the responsibility.
"Hey boss, I checked that knee and Mawson will be back at full strength in six weeks". "Hey boss, this kid Seri is a natural". "Anguissa has more potential than anyone in the world." "Noratveit will plug that defensive hole we have." yada yada yada
What I've really learned is that scapegoating is the real Fulham sport. Behind the ball we had Ali-Mac, Khan senior and now Khan junior. With the ball we have an endless list. Zamora, Baird, Ream, etc.
Anyway, automatic promotion this coming season. Parker will be a successful manager and Anguissa will come good. You heard it here first!
I love this Barca wanted him. If they'd really wanted him, they'd have got him. Yes they showed interest but never followed it up. Same with Chelsea.
Is sarcasm beyond you?
Quote from: Statto on June 26, 2019, 10:19:50 PM
Do we consistently perform poorly compared to most of our peer clubs? Yes
(https://i.postimg.cc/J0X4S2q6/1617.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/m2QgwKhh/1718.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Dzzf7Z6b/1819.jpg)
I recognise that you are not claiming that this is anything more than a rough picture, but does your research even lend itself to your answering your question above?
I say this because the points-per-million figure has been calculated incorrectly. Look at Preston, for instance. 38 points for every million spent? If that were true, their chairman must be kicking himself that he didn't give the manager another million that summer. What this figure also implies - wrongly, of course - is that, had Preston spent nothing at all, they would have had no points at all.
To generate an accurate points-per-million figure, you would need a piece of data that doesn't exist: specifically, the number of points that Preston would have got had they spent nothing at all.
On a more basic level, surely calculating points per million spent has to include total amount spent on the squad, and not just in one transfer window? Otherwise Man City would have had a ridiculous points per million last season because they just bought Mahrez for 55m last summer and got 99 points. Similarly Villa in the 17/18 column only spent 2.5m, because they spent 50-60m the previous season.
If the table was based on total spend on the playing squad we'd have finished 15th last season, so factoring in the fact that we got players in so late and there was a lack of team cohesion it's not out of the realm of possibility that we finished 4 places lower than that.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have expected more than 26 points out of 38 games after spending 100m, but still. The way I see it, we didn't spend money that much worse than Brighton have spent their money since they got promoted. Spending 20m on Jahanbakhsh, 14m on Locadia etc. the only players that have actually improved their promotion team have been Ryan, Groß (in the first season) and Propper. The difference was their team that got promoted managed to take the step up whereas the players we were looking to like Cairney and Sessegnon underperformed.
The general point is, it's a lot easier than you'd think to waste money on players and it's not exclusive to Tony Khan. We just didn't have the safety net of a Dunk and Duffy type Centre-Back pairing to bail us out (which you could argue is Tony Khan's fault).
Quote from: colinwhite on June 28, 2019, 05:04:37 PM
Agree with lighthouse. Cant see what else he could have said.
0001.jpeg
He did seem open and honest, to me, and it's to his great credit that he has been this open with fans - very unusual for someone in his position. When has any of the powers that be at Fulham ever previously been open with the supporters, or told them anything about what's been going on?
Quote from: wheelerdeeler on June 28, 2019, 11:27:21 PM
On a more basic level, surely calculating points per million spent has to include total amount spent on the squad, and not just in one transfer window?
But I addressed this above. I said I agreed that looking over a broader period would give a more accurate picture, I just havn't the time to do that on a weekday evening.
The data is there so you're free to do that yourself, and post the results.
What I also said, however, is "as is painfully clear to anyone who bothers to conduct any half-intelligent analysis of the data with a reasonable level of granularity, it will reflect poorly on TK. That's why the defences of TK on this forum invariably rely on cursory (at best) analyses and intuitive judgments."
Quote from: Dr Quinzel on June 28, 2019, 01:13:31 PM
Noticed a lot of people, and the most recent poster above me as an example, saying TK was 'open' or 'candid'.
It's a minor point, but is it really either of those things if certain questions are off of the table?
Everything was very soft (and I don't expect Fulhamish to have forced anything - they have to look after themselves and future access) and scripted, so the candidness only came on subjects that TK was willing to be candid about, which to my mind doesn't really make it the interview people are labelling it as at all.
I understand this point entirely.
It's a very basic, clearly-articulated point. It's also a matter of simple logic, rather than opinion or belief, and therefore shouldn't be controversial with posters in either the pro- and anti-TK camp.
I think unfortunately, with all due respect, it's just gone over several posters' heads.
Quote from: Dr Quinzel on June 28, 2019, 01:13:31 PM
Noticed a lot of people, and the most recent poster above me as an example, saying TK was 'open' or 'candid'.
It's a minor point, but is it really either of those things if certain questions are off of the table?
Everything was very soft (and I don't expect Fulhamish to have forced anything - they have to look after themselves and future access) and scripted, so the candidness only came on subjects that TK was willing to be candid about, which to my mind doesn't really make it the interview people are labelling it as at all.
Frankly, I wasn't surprised "everything was very soft." This was a first in a number of ways. They didn't ask many questions but that in part was due to the fact that TK's answers went far beyond the original question and we learned his take on several situations. If they get another chance to interview him, I'm sure they'll ask him to expand on some of his answers.
Keeping channels of communication open has to be better than battering the guy with all that went wrong and effectively killing the chance of any future podcasts with him or maybe his dad.
Quote from: Dr Quinzel on June 28, 2019, 05:23:56 PM
Quote from: colinwhite on June 28, 2019, 05:04:37 PM
Agree with lighthouse. Cant see what else he could have said.
As someone who isn't satisfied with his employment or existence at the club, I suppose I have more questions than others maybe.
Im not any less satisfied than anybody else . He is clearly in the role to stay whether we like it or not so I cant see the point of some. posters constantly going on about his level of competence . He clearly goes with the package of ownership and I think the Khans are doing a lot of good things for our great club. The irony is that had he been an imcompetent (non son of owner ) director of football, that in my view would have been alot worse. The question is then would that person have got so much negative attention.
Quote from: Arthur on June 28, 2019, 11:10:46 PM
Quote from: Statto on June 26, 2019, 10:19:50 PM
Do we consistently perform poorly compared to most of our peer clubs? Yes
(https://i.postimg.cc/J0X4S2q6/1617.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/m2QgwKhh/1718.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Dzzf7Z6b/1819.jpg)
I recognise that you are not claiming that this is anything more than a rough picture, but does your research even lend itself to your answering your question above?
I say this because the points-per-million figure has been calculated incorrectly. Look at Preston, for instance. 38 points for every million spent? If that were true, their chairman must be kicking himself that he didn't give the manager another million that summer. What this figure also implies - wrongly, of course - is that, had Preston spent nothing at all, they would have had no points at all.
To generate an accurate points-per-million figure, you would need a piece of data that doesn't exist: specifically, the number of points that Preston would have got had they spent nothing at all.
I see what you are trying to say but it is true of any set of figures.
There would be a hyphen or an infinity symbol in the column since no money was spent. It is just like if a manager signed for a club but for some reason didn't manage a game for them, he would still be a manager but would have an incalculable Points Per Game tally. Or, in the case of a ten points deduction for a team and no points won a manager would have negative PPG. They are just awkward cases but do not detract from the point being made.
If TK claims the glory for players who did sign he also has to take the flak for the ones who didn't sign since he is the negotiator tasked with attracting the player to FFC, sorting a deal and signing them. That is a prime job that he appears to enjoy in all his ventures - attracting others to join his circuses and it is what he had to do for every position that is/was begging to be filled since he took the job on at the time of Jokanovic's first summer and the last minute loan of Martin to replace outgoing McCormack and Dembele II.
We know from his podcast ramblings that TK's 'hard work' was pretty easy to do with the signings of Mitro and Mawson last summer, for example, and you can then deduce, at your convenience, why that may be. We also know, although he didn't mention it in the interview ('why?' may be a sensitive question) that Seri was offered to us by Lyons when a deal was being negotiated for MLM since that information is already in the public domain and remains undisputed except for one FOFer who says it wasn't so. TK doesn't even mention a situation where he went shopping for a modest utility defender and came back with an expensive midfielder in addition? The reasons why he doesn't touch on the more difficult things he could have mentioned are complex and could range from him having negated them from his mind, or simply saturating our minds with his good points much as a child does to a parent when they feel insecure or just not feeling happy to do so. He feels on safer ground just to say Ragnar Siggurdson 'didn't work out' (just one of those things), a discovery made for him by his head coach at the time.
I just wish the TK worshippers would have the same sense of balance as they expect of his detractors. I happen to believe his record is rather on the poor side of mediorcre considering his father would apparently always give him (see TheRationalFan many contributions to this forum for reasons) what he needs in terms of cash, provided the FFP rules are not breached again. It isn't just the transfer values we should look at it is also the wages.
Quote from: colinwhite on June 29, 2019, 08:01:59 AM
Quote from: Dr Quinzel on June 28, 2019, 05:23:56 PM
Quote from: colinwhite on June 28, 2019, 05:04:37 PM
Agree with lighthouse. Cant see what else he could have said.
As someone who isn't satisfied with his employment or existence at the club, I suppose I have more questions than others maybe.
Im not any less satisfied than anybody else . He is clearly in the role to stay whether we like it or not so I cant see the point of some. posters constantly going on about his level of competence . He clearly goes with the package of ownership and I think the Khans are doing a lot of good things for our great club. The irony is that had he been an imcompetent (non son of owner ) director of football, that in my view would have been alot worse. The question is then would that person have got so much negative attention.
I'll keep going on about it until something changes. The idea of 'whether we like it or not' and 'what is the point' baffles me. When something is clearly inappropriate, why would you just blindly accept it?
I don't believe that it is acceptable for SK to say he's only here on the basis TK is. If that is how he feels, then SK isn't the owner we feel he is. The idea that they're a package deal is just astounding to me.
Quote from: Statto on June 29, 2019, 01:39:59 AM
Quote from: Dr Quinzel on June 28, 2019, 01:13:31 PM
Noticed a lot of people, and the most recent poster above me as an example, saying TK was 'open' or 'candid'.
It's a minor point, but is it really either of those things if certain questions are off of the table?
Everything was very soft (and I don't expect Fulhamish to have forced anything - they have to look after themselves and future access) and scripted, so the candidness only came on subjects that TK was willing to be candid about, which to my mind doesn't really make it the interview people are labelling it as at all.
I understand this point entirely.
It's a very basic, clearly-articulated point. It's also a matter of simple logic, rather than opinion or belief, and therefore shouldn't be controversial with posters in either the pro- and anti-TK camp.
I think unfortunately, with all due respect, it's just gone over several posters' heads.
Thanks Statto. I wasn't sure quite else how to phrase it - some I assume are just being wilfully ignorant, but it's such a minor point it doesn't seem labouring on any further.
Quote from: toshes mate on June 29, 2019, 09:02:20 AM
If TK claims the glory for players who did sign he also has to take the flak for the ones who didn't sign since he is the negotiator tasked with attracting the player to FFC, sorting a deal and signing them. That is a prime job that he appears to enjoy in all his ventures - attracting others to join his circuses and it is what he had to do for every position that is/was begging to be filled since he took the job on at the time of Jokanovic's first summer and the last minute loan of Martin to replace outgoing McCormack and Dembele II.
We know from his podcast ramblings that TK's 'hard work' was pretty easy to do with the signings of Mitro and Mawson last summer, for example, and you can then deduce, at your convenience, why that may be. We also know, although he didn't mention it in the interview ('why?' may be a sensitive question) that Seri was offered to us by Lyons when a deal was being negotiated for MLM since that information is already in the public domain and remains undisputed except for one FOFer who says it wasn't so. TK doesn't even mention a situation where he went shopping for a modest utility defender and came back with an expensive midfielder in addition? The reasons why he doesn't touch on the more difficult things he could have mentioned are complex and could range from him having negated them from his mind, or simply saturating our minds with his good points much as a child does to a parent when they feel insecure or just not feeling happy to do so. He feels on safer ground just to say Ragnar Siggurdson 'didn't work out' (just one of those things), a discovery made for him by his head coach at the time.
I just wish the TK worshippers would have the same sense of balance as they expect of his detractors. I happen to believe his record is rather on the poor side of mediorcre considering his father would apparently always give him (see TheRationalFan many contributions to this forum for reasons) what he needs in terms of cash, provided the FFP rules are not breached again. It isn't just the transfer values we should look at it is also the wages.
The big picture is a) what happened since the khans took over and b) did TK's appointment make any difference.
The answer to a) is we are much worse making too many obvious errors and then repeating them and b) no difference because the policies have not altered. Last season by 31st august it was apparent despite the money we had assembled a poor unbalanced squad. The only center half arrived and remained injured.
In each of the two previous seasons we had a very thin squad made up of way too many loanees that by a miraclr slav got over the line, just.
It is blazingly apparent, crystal clear, in HD sharp focus the management is very poor in respect ofctransfers and assemblinga squad capable of growing for the future. Listening to TK was depressingbecause he is a nice man, with apparent good intent and not a clue, and because he is in such denial is bound to failagain.
The people that apologise for him do us no favours if they want the same as me which is long term success. The khans will never bring that on the pitch unlss they admit to and then learn from their errors.
I cannot bring myself to believe we will finish top half unless scott turns out to be the same genius level as slav.
Quote from: colinwhite on June 29, 2019, 08:01:59 AM
The irony is that had he been an imcompetent (non son of owner ) director of football, that in my view would have been alot worse. The question is then would that person have got so much negative attention.
Well Mike "rigor mortis" Rigg brought in Jokanovic and most of our best players from the promotion season (Cairney, Fredericks, Ream and arguably McDonald were Rigg's) on a fraction of the budget Tony Khan had, yet he got, and continues to get, plenty of "negative attention"
Quote from: Statto on June 29, 2019, 09:49:30 AM
Quote from: colinwhite on June 29, 2019, 08:01:59 AM
The irony is that had he been an imcompetent (non son of owner ) director of football, that in my view would have been alot worse. The question is then would that person have got so much negative attention.
Well Mike "rigor mortis" Rigg brought in Jokanovic and most of our best players from the promotion season (Cairney, Fredericks, Ream and arguably McDonald were Rigg's) on a fraction of the budget Tony Khan had, yet he got, and continues to get, plenty of "negative attention"
I don't think Rigg did bring in Jokanovic. Unless I am mistaken, this post is based on a lot of assumptions you don't know as fact. Even so, you listed some positive signings from Rigg but there were a whole load of negatives as well. Before TK took over transfers we nearly went down 2 season in a row. TK come in and we challenged for promotion
Quote from: @jolslover on June 29, 2019, 11:05:47 AM
Quote from: Statto on June 29, 2019, 09:49:30 AM
Quote from: colinwhite on June 29, 2019, 08:01:59 AM
The irony is that had he been an imcompetent (non son of owner ) director of football, that in my view would have been alot worse. The question is then would that person have got so much negative attention.
Well Mike "rigor mortis" Rigg brought in Jokanovic and most of our best players from the promotion season (Cairney, Fredericks, Ream and arguably McDonald were Rigg's) on a fraction of the budget Tony Khan had, yet he got, and continues to get, plenty of "negative attention"
I don't think Rigg did bring in Jokanovic. Unless I am mistaken, this post is based on a lot of assumptions you don't know as fact. Even so, you listed some positive signings from Rigg but there were a whole load of negatives as well. Before TK took over transfers we nearly went down 2 season in a row. TK come in and we challenged for promotion
It's quite funny that, just like a stats system, when an awful lot of change happens at much the same time, posters will conveniently and arbitrarily select one item over and above all the others to make their point. It is just like a stats system that begs your focus on one item that you love to inspect when it is flagged because it is your baby, when another stat not your baby, is a more glaring and unflagged stat that is screaming for your undivided attention. TK and his system haven't proven more capable of putting us where we would like to be - if they got us promotion then they also got us demotion - than what went before and to pretend otherwise is the height of foolishness. If TK's system is better than what other clubs are doing then let us have some proof of that.
Reasoned argument against TK is one thing ,but blaming him for everything is just stupid . And there has been a fair bit of that going on. Rigg signed cairney. The rest Im not sure about ,but think Macdonald was signed was signed by TK. he was a long term target as have many other players signed by whoever. Its never down to one person.
As far as the Khans are concerned ,can we reall y have it both ways ? If we go up next year it will still be TK had nothing to do with it ,and it was ok because of other people in the club and because his dads got a lot of money. We reached the play offs and gained promotion under his watch. We didnt stay up this time ,but if we do next time will people conitinue to slag -off TK if we go up next season ? If he hadnt spent 100 mill on players the criticism of TK would have been even greater. We like most other teams coming up to the PL didnt get it right , but lets hope we do next time. At least we had a go !!
Quote from: toshes mate on June 29, 2019, 08:25:19 AM
Quote from: Arthur on June 28, 2019, 11:10:46 PM
Quote from: Statto on June 26, 2019, 10:19:50 PM
Do we consistently perform poorly compared to most of our peer clubs? Yes
I recognise that you are not claiming that this is anything more than a rough picture, but does your research even lend itself to your answering your question above?
Look at Preston, for instance. 38 points for every million spent?
What this figure also implies - wrongly, of course - is that, had Preston spent nothing at all, they would have had no points at all.
To generate an accurate points-per-million figure, you would need a piece of data that doesn't exist: specifically, the number of points that Preston would have got had they spent nothing at all.
I see what you are trying to say but it is true of any set of figures.
There would be a hyphen or an infinity symbol in the column since no money was spent.
They are just awkward cases but do not detract from the point being made.
I agree, but would go further and say that the points-per-million figure neither adds to nor detracts from the point being made because it has been calculated with insufficient information.
Had Preston (to stick with my earlier example) not spent anything at all that season, they would still have gained points. To help me, I shall pluck a number out of the air: 65 points. It is only from knowing both totals - 65 (£0M spend) and 73 (£2M spend) - that a meaningful points-per-million figure can be arrived it. In this case, of course, it would be 4 points-per-million-spent.
And even if we knew this much, it couldn't possibly be regarded as a categorical measure of competency. After all, based on the 4 points-per-million-spent figure, had Preston, like us that season, spent £17M, they should have accrued 133 points. Clearly, an unrealistic expectation. No one has to be either a football or a mathematical expert to see that there is a law of diminishing returns typically associated with expenditure and extra points gained (although, having thought about it some more, it may be a bell curve of sorts).
As we cannot know how any club would have done had it spent no money at all, in my view, the points-per-million figure is so speculative as to invalidate it.
Quote from: Arthur on June 29, 2019, 01:09:06 PM
I agree, but would go further and say that the points-per-million figure neither adds to nor detracts from the point being made because it has been calculated with insufficient information.
Had Preston (to stick with my earlier example) not spent anything at all that season, they would still have gained points. To illustrate, I shall pluck a number out of the air: 65 points. It is only from knowing both totals - 65 (£0M spend) and 73 (£2M spend) - that a meaningful points-per-million figure can be arrived it. In this case, of course, it would be 4 points-per-million-spent.
And even if we knew this much, it couldn't possibly be regarded as a categorical measure of competency. After all, based on the 4 points-per-million-spent figure, had Preston, like us that season, spent £17M, they should have accrued 133 points. Clearly, an unrealistic expectation. No one has to be either a football or a mathematical expert to see that there is a law of diminishing returns typically associated with expenditure and extra points gained.
As we cannot know how any club would have done had it spent no money at all, in my view, the points-per-million figure is so speculative as to invalidate it.
I would have preferred to see a points per game record for each club which is more realistic since outside the PL forty six games (higher max) are played rather than thirty eight in the PL. That gives a truer reflection of the outcomes on a game by game basis, and deals with your valuable comment about measuring like for like which the table doesn't entirely achieve. I'd also feel that a three season picture of total spend as required by FFP would also reflect circumstances of spending more accurately than any one season or single item of the spend. Needless to say, however, you don't always get value for what you spend in transfers and I do believe TK's system is supposed to change all that once and for all.
Quote from: YankeeJim on June 28, 2019, 06:26:33 PM
Quote from: Penfold on June 27, 2019, 08:18:38 PM
Quote from: YankeeJim on June 27, 2019, 06:47:45 PM
Having read (painfully) these past 9 pages I've learned many things.
TK must have inspected Mawson's knee himself.
Most of us were happy when Seri was signed because Barca wanted him, don't ya know but his failure to impress was TK's fault.
TK can't take credit for Mitro, Odoi, Chambers, Bryan, Ayite, Babel or Johansen but is responsible for Noratveit, Fonte, Fosu-Mensah, Christi, Anguissa and Schurrle.
He IS responsible for all of these. He is in charge of the recruitment team and they pretty much failed. However, the medical team and the scouting department share the responsibility.
"Hey boss, I checked that knee and Mawson will be back at full strength in six weeks". "Hey boss, this kid Seri is a natural". "Anguissa has more potential than anyone in the world." "Noratveit will plug that defensive hole we have." yada yada yada
What I've really learned is that scapegoating is the real Fulham sport. Behind the ball we had Ali-Mac, Khan senior and now Khan junior. With the ball we have an endless list. Zamora, Baird, Ream, etc.
Anyway, automatic promotion this coming season. Parker will be a successful manager and Anguissa will come good. You heard it here first!
I love this Barca wanted him. If they'd really wanted him, they'd have got him. Yes they showed interest but never followed it up. Same with Chelsea.
Is sarcasm beyond you?
I love it. Problem these days is I'm not always sure who is being sarcastic. A couple of people I was chatting with last season nearly went blue in the face insisting that they honestly believed we'd beaten Chelsea to Seri's signature.
Hope you're not sweating your nuts off over there as we are here.
Just listed in to the full Pod Cast which I found very interesting, He comes across very well and obviously has Fulham in his heart.Seems to me he takes all the flack for all the negative things but very little credit for all things positive. I like him.
Quote from: Arthur on June 29, 2019, 01:09:06 PM
in my view, the points-per-million figure is so speculative as to invalidate it.
In several posts I've made it clear that I'm not holding it out as a perfect analysis. However to view it as totally invalidated by those imperfections is effectively to say there isn't any correlation between the transfer funds a DoF has at his disposal in the summer, and what his team can be reasonably expected to achieve the following season. To deny any correlation whatsoever between those two things is frankly absurd.
In any case I'll do a 3-yr analysis soon and put the matter to bed.
Quote from: @jolslover on June 29, 2019, 11:05:47 AM
I don't think Rigg did bring in Jokanovic. Unless I am mistaken, this post is based on a lot of assumptions you don't know as fact.
Think what you like. There was lots of stuff put out by the club at the time saying Rigg was leading the search, including a little video IIRC where he first coined the "head coach" title that Jokanovic was ultimately given. Indeed, the main reason Mike Rigg got so much stick from fans was because we were managerless for so long whilst he was perceived to be undertaking that search.
Not sure what else in there is "assumptions"... Are you disputing that we signed Cairney in summer 2015, for example?
To answer some of the queries above, here's a table of the amount spent by each club in the bottom half of the PL, along with the ratio between that spending and the points they achieved in 18/19... but this time the spending is OVER 3 YEARS from 2016 to 2019 and NET SPENDING (ie deducting sales).
The figures also disregard sales >£5m of players acquired before the 3 yr period, eg, Mitroglou, Van Dijk, Wijnaldum, Sissoko
You'll see that even over 3 yrs, we've still spent more than Burnley, Newcastle and Watford and a similar amount to Palace, Bournemouth and Brighton
(https://i.postimg.cc/QM90ZYsv/Untitled.jpg)
Here's the net spending broken down...
(https://i.postimg.cc/jjP3J39P/Untitled2.jpg)
Well done Statto, I think you have just proven that it isn't the amount you spend it is the performance of the team that justifies the spend. TK needs to do another podcast, explain to all his listeners why his system didn't bring that to fruition and whether or not his system was at fault. (I am being deliberately provocative but I'd love to hear him try to explain it away, with a thoroughly decent interviewer of course.)
Quote from: toshes mate on June 29, 2019, 09:19:19 PM
Well done Statto, I think you have just proven that it isn't the amount you spend it is the performance of the team that justifies the spend. TK needs to do another podcast, explain to all his listeners why his system didn't bring that to fruition and whether or not his system was at fault. (I am being deliberately provocative but I'd love to hear him try to explain it away, with a thoroughly decent interviewer of course.)
think he explained it when he said the previous manager didnt go to the scouting meetings, how he meant to know what type of player the manager wants and how it will fit into the manager's system. He brought purely on stats and info from the scouts, The the previous manager doesn't say yes he's a good player but has not the type i need i don't need another creative forward i need a deep lying playmaker. It doesnt mean he brought bad players just prehaps the wrong type as the manager didnt brother to have an input
Quote from: Statto on June 29, 2019, 07:06:23 PM
Quote from: Arthur on June 29, 2019, 01:09:06 PM
in my view, the points-per-million figure is so speculative as to invalidate it.
In several posts I've made it clear that I'm not holding it out as a perfect analysis.
... And the opening line of my first contribution to this thread (page 11) acknowledges this. I'm sure you wouldn't expect me to repeat it every time I post.
Quote from: Statto on June 29, 2019, 07:06:23 PM
However to view it as totally invalidated by those imperfections is effectively to say there isn't any correlation between the transfer funds a DoF has at his disposal in the summer, and what his team can be reasonably expected to achieve the following season.
I don't accept this. I do, however, think that to the 'points divided by expenditure' calculation has too many potential flaws to be taken seriously - foremost among them, the fact that it is based on a premise that could not be further from the truth: that a club that spends nothing will get zero points.
Had you based your tables on the points difference from the season before, it would have more validity. Without this adjustment, the 2016-17 table, for instance, shows the Derby DoF having a higher points-per-million figure than Tony Khan. Would anyone, however, consider that The Rams had done better than our man if they knew that Derby had spent £15.5 million pounds to see their points total
fall by 11 points from the previous season's, while Tony's investment - £23 million - saw our points tally increase by 29?
I want to be clear that I'm not trying to prove or disprove that Khan is a poor DoF. My interest is in whether he is being judged fairly. If you think those particular tables count for something worthwhile - great. I don't. But I am grateful for your research; it has given me something to think about.
Quote from: Arthur on June 29, 2019, 10:54:04 PM
Quote from: Statto on June 29, 2019, 07:06:23 PM
However to view it as totally invalidated by those imperfections is effectively to say there isn't any correlation between the transfer funds a DoF has at his disposal in the summer, and what his team can be reasonably expected to achieve the following season.
I don't accept this.
You don't need to accept it. It's not an opinion, just an expression of logic.
Quote from: Arthur on June 29, 2019, 10:54:04 PM
it is based on a premise that could not be further from the truth: that a club that spends nothing will get zero points.
For the sake of argument, let's say instead of using the actual number of points scored by each club, I'd put the difference between their actual score and an arbitrary benchmark, eg, 50 pts. Then to use your previous example, instead of showing Preston scoring 73 pts, it would show them scoring 23 pts above the benchmark, and imply that had they spent nothing, they'd have got zero points above the benchmark, ie, 50 pts.
In that case, the table would show substantially the same rankings, but without implying the "premise" that bothers you.
In other words, it wouldn't alter the result the table is intended to show, which is the relationship between the amount each team spent that year, and the success they achieved in the league (relative to each other).
The problem here is you've taken the table as intended to show something else - specifically, the number of points each team would have got had they not spent anything. I agree with you it doesn't show that. Because it's not intended to. I apologise for not making that clearer in the initial post.
Quote from: Arthur on June 29, 2019, 10:54:04 PM
Had you based your tables on the points difference from the season before, it would have more validity.
This is an interesting idea but gives rise to its own problems, and in any case may not yield hugely different results.
For example, for the 16/17 season, it wouldn't be fair to use the preceding season's tally as Fulham's benchmark, given it would have been skewed unusually low by, among other things, the fact we had 4 managers that season (Symons, Grant, Gray then Jokanovic) and were in general disarray.
For the 17/18 season, I suspect our position in the results would be substantially the same.
For the 18/19 season, it would be hard to include in the results both clubs that had been in the PL the preceding season, and the newly-promoted who were in the Championship the preceding season. Among the newly-promoted clubs, it's clear without actually carrying out the exercise, that even allowing for the fact we scored 2-11 pts less than Cardiff and Wolves, we'd still be bottom of that trio in the results.
Quote from: Statto on June 30, 2019, 02:08:07 AM
Quote from: Arthur on June 29, 2019, 10:54:04 PM
Quote from: Statto on June 29, 2019, 07:06:23 PM
However to view it as totally invalidated by those imperfections is effectively to say there isn't any correlation between the transfer funds a DoF has at his disposal in the summer, and what his team can be reasonably expected to achieve the following season.
I don't accept this.
You don't need to accept it. It's not an opinion, just an expression of simple logic.
I think yours
is an opinion. Yes, it's logical to think that there should be a correlation between transfer spending and how well a team performs; it doesn't follow from this, in my opinion, that any and every formula that links the two is credible. I am happy to differ with you.
Quote from: Statto on June 30, 2019, 02:08:07 AM
Quote from: Arthur on June 29, 2019, 10:54:04 PM
it is based on a premise that could not be further from the truth: that a club that spends nothing will get zero points.
For the sake of argument, let's say instead of using the actual number of points scored by each club, I'd put the difference between their actual score and an arbitrary benchmark, eg, 50 pts. Then to use your previous example, instead of showing Preston scoring 73 pts, it would show them scoring 23 pts above the benchmark, and imply that had they spent nothing, they'd have got zero points above the benchmark, ie, 50 pts.
In that case, the table would show exactly the same results - each team in the same position, with Preston still at the top, but without implying the "premise" that bothers you.
I can see the point you're making: that though the actual points-per-million figure may be inaccurate, the order of the teams in your tables is correct.
How likely, then, is it that we would have got more than 88 points were the DoF at Preston to have been working for us and spent £17M? Because this is the conclusion to draw, is it not? That Preston had the best DoF of the top seven clubs that season: ergo, had he been at any of the other six, each would have fared even better. Really? Can spending £2M pounds, however successfully, be evidence enough to say that he would have used the rather larger transfer kitties of ourselves and Wolves to gain even more points? Or better Cardiff's 90 with an outlay of £11M? I don't see it - which is why I would disregard the table. If you can show me otherwise, I would be happy to consider it.
As an aside, I shall respond to your suggestion that the premise I use, which - even if you disagree about the extent to which it distorts the points-per-million calculation - is a fact of the way in which the formula works, 'bothers' me. It's a subtle yet deliberate attempt at a put down; it's trying to imply that I've become fixated; that my reasoning has been impaired. Please don't presume I'm trying to come across as 'holier-than-thou'; doubtless, I've made unfair aspersions myself in the past. But can we agree not to resort to such 'tactics'? Thank you.
Quote from: Statto on June 30, 2019, 02:08:07 AM
Quote from: Arthur on June 29, 2019, 10:54:04 PM
Had you based your tables on the points difference from the season before, it would have more validity.
This is an interesting idea but gives rise to its own problems, and in any case may not yield hugely different results.
For example, for the 16/17 season, it wouldn't be fair to use the preceding season's tally as Fulham's benchmark, given it would have been skewed unusually low by, among other things, the fact we had 4 managers that season (Symons, Grant, Gray then Jokanovic) and were in general disarray.
To my mind, this is superior to using an arbitrary number of points as a benchmark. Even if our general disarray had cost us 20 points that season, using your benchmark, the Derby DoF who spent £15M, only to to end the season with 11 points fewer, would still be deemed more successful than T.K. - whose spending would have gained us 9 points. A formula which can throw up such an anomaly surely has to have a big question mark against it.
Quote from: Nero on June 29, 2019, 09:37:45 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 29, 2019, 09:19:19 PM
Well done Statto, I think you have just proven that it isn't the amount you spend it is the performance of the team that justifies the spend. TK needs to do another podcast, explain to all his listeners why his system didn't bring that to fruition and whether or not his system was at fault. (I am being deliberately provocative but I'd love to hear him try to explain it away, with a thoroughly decent interviewer of course.)
think he explained it when he said the previous manager didnt go to the scouting meetings, how he meant to know what type of player the manager wants and how it will fit into the manager's system. He brought purely on stats and info from the scouts, The the previous manager doesn't say yes he's a good player but has not the type i need i don't need another creative forward i need a deep lying playmaker. It doesnt mean he brought bad players just prehaps the wrong type as the manager didnt brother to have an input
Seems plausible, Nero, but I think you know it is BS. In the podcast TK says
'I think I had a good relationship with SJ' and for two seasons SJ's
absence from those sessions gave us a near miss and then promotion. Only one season gave us terrible outcome. As long as SJ had been given time then he would have turned TK's **** up around a third time. It may have kept us up; it may not have done. TK's BS explains nothing.
Quote from: toshes mate on June 30, 2019, 07:07:38 AM
Quote from: Nero on June 29, 2019, 09:37:45 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 29, 2019, 09:19:19 PM
Well done Statto, I think you have just proven that it isn't the amount you spend it is the performance of the team that justifies the spend. TK needs to do another podcast, explain to all his listeners why his system didn't bring that to fruition and whether or not his system was at fault. (I am being deliberately provocative but I'd love to hear him try to explain it away, with a thoroughly decent interviewer of course.)
think he explained it when he said the previous manager didnt go to the scouting meetings, how he meant to know what type of player the manager wants and how it will fit into the manager's system. He brought purely on stats and info from the scouts, The the previous manager doesn't say yes he's a good player but has not the type i need i don't need another creative forward i need a deep lying playmaker. It doesnt mean he brought bad players just prehaps the wrong type as the manager didnt brother to have an input
Seems plausible, Nero, but I think you know it is BS. In the podcast TK says 'I think I had a good relationship with SJ' and for two seasons SJ's absence from those sessions gave us a near miss and then promotion. Only one season gave us terrible outcome. As long as SJ had been given time then he would have turned TK's **** up around a third time. It may have kept us up; it may not have done. TK's BS explains nothing.
or perhaps SJ is a good championship manager but cant cut it in the premier league like Warnock, he did look like he was going to turn it around against Liverpool but it was too little to late and the performance against Huddersfield was dire. You end up by saying the players he signed where good players after coaching but this goes back to the original point of if the manager turned up for the scouting meetings perhaps other players would have been signed and fitted into the manager's system quicker and he might have kept his job, we will never know. But this season we know Scotty is going to the meeting so let see who we sign.
Last year TK shouldn't have spent a penny and would have probably got less stick
Quote from: Nero on June 30, 2019, 10:16:12 AM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 30, 2019, 07:07:38 AM
Quote from: Nero on June 29, 2019, 09:37:45 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 29, 2019, 09:19:19 PM
Well done Statto, I think you have just proven that it isn't the amount you spend it is the performance of the team that justifies the spend. TK needs to do another podcast, explain to all his listeners why his system didn't bring that to fruition and whether or not his system was at fault. (I am being deliberately provocative but I'd love to hear him try to explain it away, with a thoroughly decent interviewer of course.)
think he explained it when he said the previous manager didnt go to the scouting meetings, how he meant to know what type of player the manager wants and how it will fit into the manager's system. He brought purely on stats and info from the scouts, The the previous manager doesn't say yes he's a good player but has not the type i need i don't need another creative forward i need a deep lying playmaker. It doesnt mean he brought bad players just prehaps the wrong type as the manager didnt brother to have an input
Seems plausible, Nero, but I think you know it is BS. In the podcast TK says 'I think I had a good relationship with SJ' and for two seasons SJ's absence from those sessions gave us a near miss and then promotion. Only one season gave us terrible outcome. As long as SJ had been given time then he would have turned TK's **** up around a third time. It may have kept us up; it may not have done. TK's BS explains nothing.
or perhaps SJ is a good championship manager but cant cut it in the premier league like Warnock, he did look like he was going to turn it around against Liverpool but it was too little to late and the performance against Huddersfield was dire. You end up by saying the players he signed where good players after coaching but this goes back to the original point of if the manager turned up for the scouting meetings perhaps other players would have been signed and fitted into the manager's system quicker and he might have kept his job, we will never know. But this season we know Scotty is going to the meeting so let see who we sign.
Last year TK shouldn't have spent a penny and would have probably got less stick
I haven't implied your highlighted comment at all. I have, all along, said that it is the team that works because of the partnerships created within that team. That is two things happening - players learning how to live with their partners and the team having a philosophy that has been coached into them. That they are good players should be the norm for what recruiter would knowingly employ a bad player? I have simply pointed to the illogical conclusion you draw that it was the coach's absence that caused the problem when, in factual evidence, Jokanovic proved at Anfield that he could do something with what he had been given. The fact he was already toast is the Khans overriding problem as I have already stated often enough. The Khans just do not know when to get involved and when to back off, and that isn't just in relation to Jokanovic. If just twenty five percent of SJ's magic dust has landed on SP then we could have a decent season but I fear it is going to need quite a bit more dust than that. But we shall see.
Quote from: Arthur on June 30, 2019, 06:14:50 AM
To my mind, this is superior to using an arbitrary number of points as a benchmark. Even if our general disarray had cost us 20 points that season, using your benchmark, the Derby DoF who spent £15M, only to to end the season with 11 points fewer, would still be deemed more successful than T.K. - whose spending would have gained us 9 points. A formula which can throw up such an anomaly surely has to have a big question mark against it.
Here are the same tables using your approach. As I said, it's not practicable to compare teams who were in different divisions with this approach, so they've been removed. FWIW, had our 4-manager-disarray in 14/15 cost us 20 pts (or anything above 12 pts) we'd be a place lower in the first table.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tJWTt0Kd/16-17.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/W123rHXr/17-18.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Pr6G3Vd1/18-19.jpg)
Quote from: Arthur on June 30, 2019, 06:14:50 AM
How likely, then, is it that we would have got more than 88 points were the DoF at Preston to have been working for us and spent £17M? Because this is the conclusion to draw, is it not? That Preston had the best DoF of the top seven clubs that season: ergo, had he been at any of the other six, each would have fared even better. Really? Can spending £2M pounds, however successfully, be evidence enough to say that he would have used the rather larger transfer kitties of ourselves and Wolves to gain even more points? Or better Cardiff's 90 with an outlay of £11M?
Again, this seems to be a denial of the correlation between the amount a club spends and how well it's expected to perform. There are now 3 analyses comparing these things (and FWIW, IMO the most accurate and comprehensive is the 3-yr analysis above, which we haven't discussed) and they all indicate that TK generally achieves proportionately a lot less than his peers with the money he spends. I accept that other factors affect the accuracy of these analyses (including FWIW the law of diminishing returns in this context, which you mentioned) but nonetheless, cannot see how, logically, you can dismiss them *absolutely* without also rejecting that there's correlation between the amount a club spends and how well it's expected to perform. As I've already said, I think it frankly absurd to reject that correlation,
So yes, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm most definitely inferring that given their better (or in some cases, proportionately better) results from smaller budgets, other clubs' DoFs would have done better than TK with our transfer kitty.
So does it mean if we spent 412m we would have won the league?
Anyone else find it funny that we are using stats to try and prove stats used by TK dont work
I think we've reached the conclusion of the argument as to whether Tony Khan's stat based system doesn't work by using stats to prove his stats don't work.
Before TK we would buy a player based on scouting. Then the club would have to work out whether we could afford the fee and his wages. Then a medical to ascertain his fitness (didn't we reject a forward from Villa due to a weak knee?) Both a form of stats I'd argue.
We're just going round in circles. Neither camp will persuade the other their thinking is skewed.
Let's have a vote and let the stat decide :)
Quote from: I Ronic on June 30, 2019, 12:37:03 PM
I think we've reached the conclusion of the argument as to whether Tony Khan's stat based system doesn't work by using stats to prove his stats don't work.
Before TK we would buy a player based on scouting. Then the club would have to work out whether we could afford the fee and his wages. Then a medical to ascertain his fitness (didn't we reject a forward from Villa due to a weak knee?) Both a form of stats I'd argue.
We're just going round in circles. Neither camp will persuade the other their thinking is skewed.
Let's have a vote and let the stat decide :)
TK - Brexit whats the difference
Quote from: Nero on June 30, 2019, 12:33:31 PM
Anyone else find it funny that we are using stats to try and prove stats used by TK dont work
Nope. You're equating criticism of Tony Khan with criticism of the general use of stats in player recruitment. I'm fine with stats. The other clubs mentioned above will all have used them to some degree. Evidently TK is just crap at applying stats.
Quote from: toshes mate on June 30, 2019, 07:07:38 AM
Quote from: Nero on June 29, 2019, 09:37:45 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 29, 2019, 09:19:19 PM
Well done Statto, I think you have just proven that it isn't the amount you spend it is the performance of the team that justifies the spend. TK needs to do another podcast, explain to all his listeners why his system didn't bring that to fruition and whether or not his system was at fault. (I am being deliberately provocative but I'd love to hear him try to explain it away, with a thoroughly decent interviewer of course.)
think he explained it when he said the previous manager didnt go to the scouting meetings, how he meant to know what type of player the manager wants and how it will fit into the manager's system. He brought purely on stats and info from the scouts, The the previous manager doesn't say yes he's a good player but has not the type i need i don't need another creative forward i need a deep lying playmaker. It doesnt mean he brought bad players just prehaps the wrong type as the manager didnt brother to have an input
Seems plausible, Nero, but I think you know it is BS. In the podcast TK says 'I think I had a good relationship with SJ' and for two seasons SJ's absence from those sessions gave us a near miss and then promotion. Only one season gave us terrible outcome. As long as SJ had been given time then he would have turned TK's **** up around a third time. It may have kept us up; it may not have done. TK's BS explains nothing.
I agree with Toshes mate!
I remember clearly being told the HC has a tick and is included in the process and nothing happens without his agreement.
Of course, if the HC is not getting his picks to the final vote then its likely he will eventually say "If I'm not really being included in the recruitment, my tick is then irelevant and my view on who I need is not taken seriously then I have better things to do"
Obviously that's an assumption but looking at the history and whats been said by those involved over time I think its a pretty good assumption.
TK's comment about the previous HC's not wishing to be involved is 1st rate BS!
Quote from: Nero on June 30, 2019, 12:33:31 PM
So does it mean if we spent 412m we would have won the league?
Anyone else find it funny that we are using stats to try and prove stats used by TK dont work
It proves that team performance is everything in justifying expenditure. It isn't a stat that needs to be proven since it has always been a fact of football life. The fact that computer systems using (apparently, so the people using them claim) sophisticated mathematics prove their worth also dodges the fact that the same sophisticated mathematics have been around for 500 years and have always been used in finding the most probable solutions to matters involving apparently random outcomes.
Probability is the action of finding the point of regression to the mean of a series of random events/outcomes. If you take a coin toss with a perfect coin the probability of heads occurring is even or 50/50 or 0.5 probability where 0 means it'll never happen and 1 means it will certainly happen. What probability means at 0.9 is that nine times out of ten (or 900 out of thousand and so on) the event's outcome should happen as predicted. It doesn't definitely prove it will happen the very next time an event happens, or even several events after that, because it takes very large numbers indeed before an event regresses to its mean (0.9 in this case) and even then it may be just the one time in forever it does so. Probability is the art of finding out how unlikely something is to happen so that you can then find how likely it will be to happen, or vice versa. But all events being measured are totally random in their outcomes i.e. a tossed coin may land on heads a thousand or more times before it comes up tails since it is a random outcome.
Quote from: bill taylors apprentice on June 30, 2019, 12:48:41 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 30, 2019, 07:07:38 AM
Quote from: Nero on June 29, 2019, 09:37:45 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 29, 2019, 09:19:19 PM
Well done Statto, I think you have just proven that it isn't the amount you spend it is the performance of the team that justifies the spend. TK needs to do another podcast, explain to all his listeners why his system didn't bring that to fruition and whether or not his system was at fault. (I am being deliberately provocative but I'd love to hear him try to explain it away, with a thoroughly decent interviewer of course.)
think he explained it when he said the previous manager didnt go to the scouting meetings, how he meant to know what type of player the manager wants and how it will fit into the manager's system. He brought purely on stats and info from the scouts, The the previous manager doesn't say yes he's a good player but has not the type i need i don't need another creative forward i need a deep lying playmaker. It doesnt mean he brought bad players just prehaps the wrong type as the manager didnt brother to have an input
Seems plausible, Nero, but I think you know it is BS. In the podcast TK says 'I think I had a good relationship with SJ' and for two seasons SJ's absence from those sessions gave us a near miss and then promotion. Only one season gave us terrible outcome. As long as SJ had been given time then he would have turned TK's **** up around a third time. It may have kept us up; it may not have done. TK's BS explains nothing.
I agree with Toshes mate!
I remember clearly being told the HC has a tick and is included in the process and nothing happens without his agreement.
Of course, if the HC is not getting his picks to the final vote then its likely he will eventually say "If I'm not really being included in the recruitment, my tick is then irelevant and my view on who I need is not taken seriously then I have better things to do"
Obviously that's an assumption but looking at the history and whats been said by those involved over time I think its a pretty good assumption.
TK's comment about the previous HC's not wishing to be involved is 1st rate BS!
Or perhaps the HC was included and then threw his teddy out of the cot over the Herrea deal which TK has explained why we didnt sign him and then didn't want to be included !!
Quote from: Nero on June 30, 2019, 12:33:31 PM
So does it mean if we spent 412m we would have won the league?
Anyone else find it funny that we are using stats to try and prove stats used by TK dont work
Aren't most saying it's not stats used, but the man using them?
Quote from: ALG01 on June 28, 2019, 12:23:25 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 28, 2019, 01:38:33 AM
History of Events
When Tony Khan asked his father to be DoF without experience, SK said "yes, my son".
When Tony Khan as DoF asked his father to buy Mitrovoic, SK said "yes, my son".
When Tony Khan as DoF asked his father to give him £100m for players, SK said "yes, my son".
The Future DoF
If Fulham sacks Tony Khan, when new DoF asks for something then what will Shahid Khan say?
If we hire a new DoF and Shahid Khan says "yes to everything the DoF wants" things will be probably go better, at least until he makes a mistake and blows the money like most DoFs eventually do.
If we hire a new DoF and Shahid Khan says "no to everything the DoF wants" things will be very dark indeed. If you don't believe me this can happen, then ask a Newcastle or Sunderland or Blackburn or Bolton or Wigan or Leeds or Aston Villa fan.
As a Fan, "Yes, my son" is better than "No, my experienced DoF". I frankly see many advantages having a DoF that is a multi-billionaires son, especially if daddy will bail him out of his mistakes.
Well, I do understand what you are saying this time and strangely there is a perverse logic to your post.
Personally i do not agree that is the correct approach.
My whole issue is does TK have what it takes to succeed as DOF at Fulham and so far the answer is clearly no.
I know you are unable/unwilling to to bring yourself to say TK has no talent for the job and I can only repeat, without his father being a very rich man he would not have the job and his lack of talent has cost us dear in so many ways. Imagine he was talented and had access to his dad's money, we would be top 6 in the prem, not relegated.
We're discussing what is the best way to spend Tony Khan's future inheritance. Currently, the Khans are giving Tony Khan's inheritance to Fulham and the DoF (Tony Khan) is spending some of it wisely and losing some of it too. You are suggesting the Khans should give continue to Tony Khan's inheritance to Fulham, but a new DoF with more football experience should spend it instead. Has anyone checked with the Khans about this plan?
No doubt that could work, but equally it could go horribly wrong, if Tony Khan's inheritance is not given to Fulham when he is not DoF. For those that hope Tony Khan's inheritance is used to fund another DoF and show what a experienced DoF can do with Tony Khan's inheritance, i do not share your optimism. And, I doubt Tony Khan will be thanking SK for sacking him as DoF, so that Tony Khan can have a better run Football Club to inherit.
Be Grateful that now, Fulham is in "one of the best leagues in the world" with plenty of expensive players and more ongoing investment expected, just enjoy the ride and see where the DoF lead us. And it could be a lot worse, in fact without the Khans money we could be already worse than Coventry, Sunderland, Bolton, Wigan, QPR and other, with their money as long 20% is spent wisely we should be in the Championship (and TK is doing better than way better 20% wise spending).
Quote from: The Rational Fan on July 01, 2019, 04:25:06 AM
We're discussing what is the best way to spend Tony Khan's future inheritance. Currently, the Khans are giving Tony Khan's inheritance to Fulham and the DoF (Tony Khan) is spending some of it wisely and losing some of it too. You are suggesting the Khans should give continue to Tony Khan's inheritance to Fulham, but a new DoF with more football experience should spend it instead. Has anyone checked with the Khans about this plan?
No doubt that could work, but equally it could go horribly wrong, if Tony Khan's inheritance is not given to Fulham when he is not DoF. For those that hope Tony Khan's inheritance is used to fund another DoF and show what a experienced DoF can do with Tony Khan's inheritance, i do not share your optimism. And, I doubt Tony Khan will be thanking SK for sacking him as DoF, so that Tony Khan can have a better run Football Club to inherit.
Be Grateful that now, Fulham is in "one of the best leagues in the world" with plenty of expensive players and more ongoing investment expected, just enjoy the ride and see where the DoF lead us. And it could be a lot worse, in fact without the Khans money we could be already worse than Coventry, Sunderland, Bolton, Wigan, QPR and other, with their money as long 20% is spent wisely we should be in the Championship (and TK is doing better than way better 20% wise spending).
The object of any private business is to make it as successful as is possible. In football at a game by game level that is about winning games, since winning games and being successful attracts new customers. To win games you must first have a football professional in charge of the process of recruiting or already having a match playing squad with a better than even chance of competing against your competitors, the other private businesses selling football. That same football professional will also be tasked with developing and honing that squad to become, over time, consistent winners. That would suggest that whoever is the money broker is subservient to the football professional since he is investing in or staking his money on his own skill of having selected that person on merit against all other potentials. That is a trust relationship.
What we appear to have at FFC is a central figure who wishes to control all aspects of the business and only entrust the football professional with team coaching and match day selection. It doesn't appear to have worked the way it was supposed to since the 'investor' has been fickle in his skill of selecting the right person for the job and has a vested interest in deflecting dissenting comment about his recruitment selections. That is where the problem lies and it is harming the business success factor regardless of any perceived value in knowing there are billions of dollars waiting to be inherited at some point in the future. Are you not guilty of missing this point and how would you remedy it?
Quote from: toshes mate on July 01, 2019, 08:15:29 AM
.....To win games you must first have a football professional in charge of the process of recruiting or already having a match playing squad with a better than even chance of competing against your competitors, the other private businesses selling football..... That would suggest that whoever is the money broker is subservient to the football professional since he is investing in or staking his money on his own skill of having selected that person on merit against all other potentials. That is a trust relationship.
What we appear to have at FFC is a central figure who wishes to control all aspects of the business and only entrust the football professional with team coaching and match day selection. It doesn't appear to have worked the way it was supposed to since the 'investor' has been fickle in his skill of selecting the right person for the job and has a vested interest in deflecting dissenting comment about his recruitment selections. That is where the problem lies and it is harming the business success factor regardless of any perceived value in knowing there are billions of dollars waiting to be inherited at some point in the future. Are you not guilty of missing this point and how would you remedy it?
I understand the point that if the recruitment was run by a experience professional, then the money given from the owner to the DoF will probably go further. But that assumes, the owner gives the experience professional the same money as he gives his son. Last time, an experience professional (i think MJG) run the summer transfer window Shahid Khan gave him £7.8m and last time Tony Khan run the summer transfer window Shahid Khan gave him £104m. As a fan, which is better MJG spending £8m or TK spending £104m?
Quote from: The Rational Fan on July 01, 2019, 09:21:18 AM
Quote from: toshes mate on July 01, 2019, 08:15:29 AM
.....To win games you must first have a football professional in charge of the process of recruiting or already having a match playing squad with a better than even chance of competing against your competitors, the other private businesses selling football..... That would suggest that whoever is the money broker is subservient to the football professional since he is investing in or staking his money on his own skill of having selected that person on merit against all other potentials. That is a trust relationship.
What we appear to have at FFC is a central figure who wishes to control all aspects of the business and only entrust the football professional with team coaching and match day selection. It doesn't appear to have worked the way it was supposed to since the 'investor' has been fickle in his skill of selecting the right person for the job and has a vested interest in deflecting dissenting comment about his recruitment selections. That is where the problem lies and it is harming the business success factor regardless of any perceived value in knowing there are billions of dollars waiting to be inherited at some point in the future. Are you not guilty of missing this point and how would you remedy it?
I understand the point that if the recruitment was run by a experience professional, then the money given from the owner to the DoF will probably go further. But that assumes, the owner gives the experience professional the same money as he gives his son. Last time, an experience professional (i think MJG) run recruitment Shahid Khan gave him £7.8m and last time Tony Khan run recruitment Shahid Khan gave him £104m. Which is better MJG with £8m or TK with £104m?
But if what you imply is true then Shahid Khan has no interest in seeing FFC as a successful business. We are reduced to his son's 'toy' which is what his son's major critics fear most since he has not demonstrated the skill sets he claims he has and has squander the only success FFC have had in his father's entire tenure here. Surely that is a dangerously risky relationship. It also points to the mistaken belief Shahid Khan must have for the pre-TK as DoF era at FFC in as much as he blames everybody but himself for failures in a business he apparently doesn't care about except as a 'toy' for his boy.
Quote from: toshes mate on July 01, 2019, 09:31:08 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on July 01, 2019, 09:21:18 AM
Quote from: toshes mate on July 01, 2019, 08:15:29 AM
.....To win games you must first have a football professional in charge of the process of recruiting or already having a match playing squad with a better than even chance of competing against your competitors, the other private businesses selling football..... That would suggest that whoever is the money broker is subservient to the football professional since he is investing in or staking his money on his own skill of having selected that person on merit against all other potentials. That is a trust relationship.
What we appear to have at FFC is a central figure who wishes to control all aspects of the business and only entrust the football professional with team coaching and match day selection. It doesn't appear to have worked the way it was supposed to since the 'investor' has been fickle in his skill of selecting the right person for the job and has a vested interest in deflecting dissenting comment about his recruitment selections. That is where the problem lies and it is harming the business success factor regardless of any perceived value in knowing there are billions of dollars waiting to be inherited at some point in the future. Are you not guilty of missing this point and how would you remedy it?
I understand the point that if the recruitment was run by a experience professional, then the money given from the owner to the DoF will probably go further. But that assumes, the owner gives the experience professional the same money as he gives his son. Last time, an experience professional (i think MJG) run recruitment Shahid Khan gave him £7.8m and last time Tony Khan run recruitment Shahid Khan gave him £104m. Which is better MJG with £8m or TK with £104m?
But if what you imply is true then Shahid Khan has no interest in seeing FFC as a successful business. We are reduced to his son's 'toy' which is what his son's major critics fear most since he has not demonstrated the skill sets he claims he has and has squander the only success FFC have had in his father's entire tenure here. Surely that is a dangerously risky relationship. It also points to the mistaken belief Shahid Khan must have for the pre-TK as DoF era at FFC in as much as he blames everybody but himself for failures in a business he apparently doesn't care about except as a 'toy' for his boy.
That's much too Black and White, but Shahid Khan is investing the absolute maximum allowed to give his son every chance of being a successful DoF.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on July 01, 2019, 10:06:58 AM
Quote from: toshes mate on July 01, 2019, 09:31:08 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on July 01, 2019, 09:21:18 AM
Quote from: toshes mate on July 01, 2019, 08:15:29 AM
.....To win games you must first have a football professional in charge of the process of recruiting or already having a match playing squad with a better than even chance of competing against your competitors, the other private businesses selling football..... That would suggest that whoever is the money broker is subservient to the football professional since he is investing in or staking his money on his own skill of having selected that person on merit against all other potentials. That is a trust relationship.
What we appear to have at FFC is a central figure who wishes to control all aspects of the business and only entrust the football professional with team coaching and match day selection. It doesn't appear to have worked the way it was supposed to since the 'investor' has been fickle in his skill of selecting the right person for the job and has a vested interest in deflecting dissenting comment about his recruitment selections. That is where the problem lies and it is harming the business success factor regardless of any perceived value in knowing there are billions of dollars waiting to be inherited at some point in the future. Are you not guilty of missing this point and how would you remedy it?
I understand the point that if the recruitment was run by a experience professional, then the money given from the owner to the DoF will probably go further. But that assumes, the owner gives the experience professional the same money as he gives his son. Last time, an experience professional (i think MJG) run recruitment Shahid Khan gave him £7.8m and last time Tony Khan run recruitment Shahid Khan gave him £104m. Which is better MJG with £8m or TK with £104m?
But if what you imply is true then Shahid Khan has no interest in seeing FFC as a successful business. We are reduced to his son's 'toy' which is what his son's major critics fear most since he has not demonstrated the skill sets he claims he has and has squander the only success FFC have had in his father's entire tenure here. Surely that is a dangerously risky relationship. It also points to the mistaken belief Shahid Khan must have for the pre-TK as DoF era at FFC in as much as he blames everybody but himself for failures in a business he apparently doesn't care about except as a 'toy' for his boy.
That's much too Black and White, but Shahid Khan is investing the absolute maximum allowed to give his son every chance of being a successful DoF.
And your stance isn't blacker and whiter than mine? Your view is that as long as TK is here we are okay and if he goes we are not - I think on a previous thread you mention the asset strippers appearing.
You need to deal with opinion a bit better than that, TRF.
Quote from: toshes mate on July 01, 2019, 10:30:28 AM
And your stance isn't blacker and whiter than mine? Your view is that as long as TK is here we are okay and if he goes we are not - I think on a previous thread you mention the asset strippers appearing.
You need to deal with opinion a bit better than that, TRF.
Maybe true, I think i said or at least should have said "if he goes, then we are at risk of asset strippers appearing especially if we aren't doing well" and yes i am fairly certain if TK stays we will spend most of our time in the top two leagues, but may from time to time driff into League One briefly which is ok given our history. My fear is getting stuck in the bottom two leagues and then getting asset stripped.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on July 01, 2019, 04:25:06 AM
Quote from: ALG01 on June 28, 2019, 12:23:25 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 28, 2019, 01:38:33 AM
History of Events
When Tony Khan asked his father to be DoF without experience, SK said "yes, my son".
When Tony Khan as DoF asked his father to buy Mitrovoic, SK said "yes, my son".
When Tony Khan as DoF asked his father to give him £100m for players, SK said "yes, my son".
The Future DoF
If Fulham sacks Tony Khan, when new DoF asks for something then what will Shahid Khan say?
If we hire a new DoF and Shahid Khan says "yes to everything the DoF wants" things will be probably go better, at least until he makes a mistake and blows the money like most DoFs eventually do.
If we hire a new DoF and Shahid Khan says "no to everything the DoF wants" things will be very dark indeed. If you don't believe me this can happen, then ask a Newcastle or Sunderland or Blackburn or Bolton or Wigan or Leeds or Aston Villa fan.
As a Fan, "Yes, my son" is better than "No, my experienced DoF". I frankly see many advantages having a DoF that is a multi-billionaires son, especially if daddy will bail him out of his mistakes.
Well, I do understand what you are saying this time and strangely there is a perverse logic to your post.
Personally i do not agree that is the correct approach.
My whole issue is does TK have what it takes to succeed as DOF at Fulham and so far the answer is clearly no.
I know you are unable/unwilling to to bring yourself to say TK has no talent for the job and I can only repeat, without his father being a very rich man he would not have the job and his lack of talent has cost us dear in so many ways. Imagine he was talented and had access to his dad's money, we would be top 6 in the prem, not relegated.
We're discussing what is the best way to spend Tony Khan's future inheritance. Currently, the Khans are giving Tony Khan's inheritance to Fulham and the DoF (Tony Khan) is spending some of it wisely and losing some of it too. You are suggesting the Khans should give continue to Tony Khan's inheritance to Fulham, but a new DoF with more football experience should spend it instead. Has anyone checked with the Khans about this plan?
No doubt that could work, but equally it could go horribly wrong, if Tony Khan's inheritance is not given to Fulham when he is not DoF. For those that hope Tony Khan's inheritance is used to fund another DoF and show what a experienced DoF can do with Tony Khan's inheritance, i do not share your optimism. And, I doubt Tony Khan will be thanking SK for sacking him as DoF, so that Tony Khan can have a better run Football Club to inherit.
Be Grateful that now, Fulham is in "one of the best leagues in the world" with plenty of expensive players and more ongoing investment expected, just enjoy the ride and see where the DoF lead us. And it could be a lot worse, in fact without the Khans money we could be already worse than Coventry, Sunderland, Bolton, Wigan, QPR and other, with their money as long 20% is spent wisely we should be in the Championship (and TK is doing better than way better 20% wise spending).
No we are not discussing the best way to spend TK's inheritance, well I wasn't anyway.
I was discussing the podcast and commenting the man is in denial regarding is part in last season's debacle.
If the Khan's remain in situ they will continue to hemorrhage money and potential take us down into the next division. Since they arrived we have been getting worse, without slav we would never have managed to get to the Prem. TK is useless at the job and it is very frustrating that he does not do us all a faviour and just move sideways.
I do look at sunderland and coventry in particular and see we have management of that calibre. It doesn't need to be this way. SK has masses of money that he seems willing to invest, so why not spend it well rather than flush it down the pan as his sonm seems happy to do.
Your defence of the owner's son is staggering. You seem happy to accept him because he has a rich dad, rather than say he has a rich dad and they cannot see that with a small change of approach we could have matched wolves last season. but they prefer to lose than admit their crackpot approach is wrong.
'discussing the best way to spend Tony Khan's future inheritance'. :005: :005: :005: :005:
Why do some of us value ourselves and the club so little, that we're willing to discuss our club in these terms.
Since Mohamed al Fayed bought FFC, FFC has literally been some rich guy's toy.
If Fulham isn't some rich guy's toy, Fulham isn't a Premier League club and won't ever be.
Quote from: Lyle from Hangeland on July 01, 2019, 04:59:54 PM
If Fulham isn't some rich guy's toy, Fulham isn't a Premier League club and won't ever be.
Oh do stop embarrassing yourself Lyle.
You can start by referring to Fulham as plural not singular
Quote from: Statto on July 01, 2019, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: Lyle from Hangeland on July 01, 2019, 04:59:54 PM
If Fulham isn't some rich guy's toy, Fulham isn't a Premier League club and won't ever be.
Oh do stop embarrassing yourself Lyle.
You can start by referring to Fulham as plural not singular
Haha... you've got no argument that you're a fan of a club long owned by successive sugar daddies.
Thank you Mohamed al Fayed! Thank you Shahid Khan!
Quote from: toshes mate on July 01, 2019, 10:30:28 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on July 01, 2019, 10:06:58 AM
Quote from: toshes mate on July 01, 2019, 09:31:08 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on July 01, 2019, 09:21:18 AM
Quote from: toshes mate on July 01, 2019, 08:15:29 AM
.....To win games you must first have a football professional in charge of the process of recruiting or already having a match playing squad with a better than even chance of competing against your competitors, the other private businesses selling football..... That would suggest that whoever is the money broker is subservient to the football professional since he is investing in or staking his money on his own skill of having selected that person on merit against all other potentials. That is a trust relationship.
What we appear to have at FFC is a central figure who wishes to control all aspects of the business and only entrust the football professional with team coaching and match day selection. It doesn't appear to have worked the way it was supposed to since the 'investor' has been fickle in his skill of selecting the right person for the job and has a vested interest in deflecting dissenting comment about his recruitment selections. That is where the problem lies and it is harming the business success factor regardless of any perceived value in knowing there are billions of dollars waiting to be inherited at some point in the future. Are you not guilty of missing this point and how would you remedy it?
I understand the point that if the recruitment was run by a experience professional, then the money given from the owner to the DoF will probably go further. But that assumes, the owner gives the experience professional the same money as he gives his son. Last time, an experience professional (i think MJG) run recruitment Shahid Khan gave him £7.8m and last time Tony Khan run recruitment Shahid Khan gave him £104m. Which is better MJG with £8m or TK with £104m?
But if what you imply is true then Shahid Khan has no interest in seeing FFC as a successful business. We are reduced to his son's 'toy' which is what his son's major critics fear most since he has not demonstrated the skill sets he claims he has and has squander the only success FFC have had in his father's entire tenure here. Surely that is a dangerously risky relationship. It also points to the mistaken belief Shahid Khan must have for the pre-TK as DoF era at FFC in as much as he blames everybody but himself for failures in a business he apparently doesn't care about except as a 'toy' for his boy.
That's much too Black and White, but Shahid Khan is investing the absolute maximum allowed to give his son every chance of being a successful DoF.
And your stance isn't blacker and whiter than mine? Your view is that as long as TK is here we are okay and if he goes we are not - I think on a previous thread you mention the asset strippers appearing.
You need to deal with opinion a bit better than that, TRF.
The sooner the owners son is sent back from where he came, cloud cuckoo land, the sooner Fulham FC can start being a proper football club that can be a fortress at the Cottage again, where we were once hard to beat. TK wouldn't know anything about that as he was knee high to a grass hopper in those days. Now he is a flaming embarrassment, and until he slings his Hook his presence will continue to be toxic, and Fulham FC will become becalmed and continue to underachieve with a soft underbelly.
Pretty sure if Johansen isn't signed by TK, our unbeaten 23 never happens, and neither does the promotion. He was our leader in assists. Slav also played him as a False-9 in our 1-0 loss to Sunderland before our streak started.
Just saying. There are a lot of "If this, then that" statements that can be made regarding recruiting. To me, the bigger issue was hiring Ranieri to replace Slav. That's not just TK's call of course, but still, I'm sure he had to give his say in the matter. We played a system that relied heavily on specific individuals, and once we started to gel with them, the likes of Mawson and Kamara went down in their own ways.
Quote from: Lyle from Hangeland on July 01, 2019, 04:59:54 PM
Since Mohamed al Fayed bought FFC, FFC has literally been some rich guy's toy.
If Fulham isn't some rich guy's toy, Fulham isn't a Premier League club and won't ever be.
Fulham are no different than most other Prem clubs in this respect.
If MAF hadn't bought us where would we be today? Another rich man , prepared to spend big on the club, would have had to have bought us if we were ever to get to the Promised Land of the Prem, rather than struggle to survive in the lower divisions - which was such an achievement, and then to be there for 13 years!
Now we are lucky enough to be owned by the Khans - another rich man prepared to spend big on Fulham, except now he is stymied by FFP, but still got us to the Prem, and have a decent chance of getting there again in the near future.
Quote from: Lyle from Hangeland on July 01, 2019, 07:35:18 PM
Quote from: Statto on July 01, 2019, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: Lyle from Hangeland on July 01, 2019, 04:59:54 PM
If Fulham isn't some rich guy's toy, Fulham isn't a Premier League club and won't ever be.
Oh do stop embarrassing yourself Lyle.
You can start by referring to Fulham as plural not singular
Haha... you've got no argument that you're a fan of a club long owned by successive sugar daddies.
Thank you Mohamed al Fayed! Thank you Shahid Khan!
After the Bosman ruling which, superficially, opened the way for players to dictate fairer terms with their clubs, professional football had to adapt to a new business model which effectively changed the way owners had to behave. Their weaknesses in behaviour were then exploited by media interests who grasped their selfish greed factor and produced a form of protectionism that the mafia would have been proud of. That it requires sugar daddies or (to complete the range of euphemisms) the richest of rich guys or the baddest of bad guys to run a business is self evident of any racket. This is just the proliferation of something football, sport and life generally has always been prone too - a protection racket that is there to stop bad things happening to those at the very top that operates at the expense of all those lower down the order. It is now more obvious than it has ever been in sport. Thanks for pointing that out.
Quote from: RaySmith on July 02, 2019, 05:24:55 AM
Quote from: Lyle from Hangeland on July 01, 2019, 04:59:54 PM
Since Mohamed al Fayed bought FFC, FFC has literally been some rich guy's toy.
If Fulham isn't some rich guy's toy, Fulham isn't a Premier League club and won't ever be.
Fulham are no different than most other Prem clubs in this respect.
If MAF hadn't bought us where would we be today? Another rich man, prepared to spend big on the club, would have had to have bought us if we were ever to get to the Promised Land of the Prem, rather than struggle to survive in the lower divisions - which was such an achievement, and then to be there for 13 years!
Now we are lucky enough to be owned by the Khans - another rich man prepared to spend big on Fulham, except now he is stymied by FFP, but still got us to the Prem, and have a decent chance of getting there again in the near future.
What i hope we've done now is put ourselves on the map for wealthy owners to look at. If we'd stayed hopping about in Lg1 and the championship with no Prem experience we would be no more valuable than say QPR but I think we are seen as a prestige club now. That won't last forever but it was Al Fayed that put us on the map and I am forever grateful for his slightly mad purchase of us back in the 90s. Plus the Cottage has become an iconic ground now which also helps, few people putting together 'best grounds in the world' lists would have included the Cottage in the 80s but they nearly always do now.