Notice AM's reply regarding transfers to the supporters trust
"we discuss prospective transfer targets as soon as the window opens". Well Ali there lies the problem, one which has been repeated over the last 5 years. You need to identify targets before the window opens so we can get them so they can have a good pre season. What a bunch of doughnuts.
I particularly like this quote:
"AM reiterated that Tony Khan is... very knowledgeable about football in great detail."
Quote from: Statto on February 18, 2019, 10:38:48 AM
I particularly like this quote:
"AM reiterated that Tony Khan is... very knowledgeable about football in great detail."
Quote from: Wex on February 18, 2019, 10:24:41 AM
Notice AM's reply regarding transfers to the supporters trust
"we discuss prospective transfer targets as soon as the window opens". Well Ali there lies the problem, one which has been repeated over the last 5 years. You need to identify targets before the window opens so we can get them so they can have a good pre season. What a bunch of doughnuts.
Were we not originally informed that they were already lining up transfer targets BEFORE the window?
Transfer committee more sense fron having Kermit and is Muppet mates running transfers.
No wonder we are where we are, it is the keystone cops running this circus after all.
I knew it, I just knew it.
I think there is a danger that people (we) pounce on words which we take out of context and that we greatly simplify situations. I can't remember under which Fulham coach/manager it was reported but my recollection is that we continually actively track (or did then) 3 players for every position.
And that tracking is really working out isn't it.
Quote from: Statto on February 18, 2019, 10:38:48 AM
I particularly like this quote:
"AM reiterated that Tony Khan is... very knowledgeable about football in great detail."
But to be fair, they were hanging him upside down by his genitalia over a bear pit, when he made that ridiculous statement.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on February 18, 2019, 11:16:55 AM
Quote from: Statto on February 18, 2019, 10:38:48 AM
I particularly like this quote:
"AM reiterated that Tony Khan is... very knowledgeable about football in great detail."
But to be fair, they were hanging him upside down by his genitalia over a bear pit, when he made that ridiculous statement.
I get the feeling that some of the other FFC staff might not be as knowledgeable about football as Tony Khan. The CEO and DOF needs to start by sacking anyone that knows less than him.
So are we creating the narrative that those who work in the scouting/recruiting department just take the months off until January or something? Even then, is there no transcript in which someone in the trust asks the actual question: "Don't you lot find targets before the January transfer window opens"? Surely not, probably because it is a stupid thing to ask, let alone assume.
Surely we can't be that defiant to our club that we assume this is how it operates. Let's just give the benefit of the doubt that there is much, much, more to the story than we're assuming.
I think AM did a good job in explaining why we didn't get who we wanted, either because the club wanted to perform the deal, but the player did not, or vice versa.
Quote from: Matt10 on February 18, 2019, 12:26:52 PM
So are we creating the narrative that those who work in the scouting/recruiting department just take the months off until January or something? Even then, is there no transcript in which someone in the trust asks the actual question: "Don't you lot find targets before the January transfer window opens"? Surely not, probably because it is a stupid thing to ask, let alone assume.
Surely we can't be that defiant to our club that we assume this is how it operates. Let's just give the benefit of the doubt that there is much, much, more to the story than we're assuming.
I think AM did a good job in explaining why we didn't get who we wanted, either because the club wanted to perform the deal, but the player did not, or vice versa.
But there is quite a body of evidence building up to support that narrative, for example
- The CEO told the trust in this meeting that the Riverside stand work is "taking up most of his time"
- TK spent the start of the summer period larging it on holiday with the players (ok it may only have been a few days, but we only had c. 40 days from the play-off final to the start of pre-season, so you're potentially talking about 10% or more of that period)
- TK was working on his wrestling project in December 2018, before the January window (and I suspect in the US for Christmas)
It isn't just a case of saying players are signed late ergo we must be late starters in the transfer window, although obviously that remains a sensible and compelling argument in itself
Quote from: The Rational Fan on February 18, 2019, 12:14:52 PM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on February 18, 2019, 11:16:55 AM
Quote from: Statto on February 18, 2019, 10:38:48 AM
I particularly like this quote:
"AM reiterated that Tony Khan is... very knowledgeable about football in great detail."
But to be fair, they were hanging him upside down by his genitalia over a bear pit, when he made that ridiculous statement.
I get the feeling that some of the other FFC staff might not be as knowledgeable about football as Tony Khan. The CEO and DOF needs to start by sacking anyone that knows less than him.
Blimey we are in a worse position than I thought we were, if what your saying is correct. Because I get the impression that TK finds it difficult to know when a football is upside down. So what must the rest of them be like.
I will say this once and once only, there is no excuse, other clubs have managed it especially with the resources we had. People say, we were delayed by our play off success. No there should have been plan A. If we get promotion and plan B if we don't. All these should have been in place in March last year. Again, there is no excuse for this train wreck of a season.
Quote from: Matt10 on February 18, 2019, 12:26:52 PM
So are we creating the narrative that those who work in the scouting/recruiting department just take the months off until January or something? Even then, is there no transcript in which someone in the trust asks the actual question: "Don't you lot find targets before the January transfer window opens"? Surely not, probably because it is a stupid thing to ask, let alone assume.
Surely we can't be that defiant to our club that we assume this is how it operates. Let's just give the benefit of the doubt that there is much, much, more to the story than we're assuming.
I think AM did a good job in explaining why we didn't get who we wanted, either because the club wanted to perform the deal, but the player did not, or vice versa.
Sorry but no more benefits of the doubt, or the same old manufactured excuses for failure, which may sound acceptable in a PR stunt from the Boardroom, but many of us have been around too long to be sucked in by nonsense. We have all forgotten more about football than these fresh faced Executives will ever learn.
They seem to forget that old English saying, never try and bullshite a bullshite r.
How many ineffective close seasons is that now due to getting players signed on the last day? Please, no more excuses,apart from incompetence.
I don't get this, I really don't. At the time we signed Fabri and Mawson, got Chambers in on loan, signed Mitro, Seri and Anguissa, Shurrle and TFM on loan, most were happy with that, and thought that we would do well - as did I. This constant re writing of history to point out that we now decry what happened is like a scene out of 1984 ("Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia").
Yes I hate this car crash of a season, but the constant revisionist sniping is overkill.
Quote from: snarks on February 18, 2019, 01:00:36 PM
I don't get this, I really don't. At the time we signed Fabri and Mawson, got Chambers in on loan, signed Mitro, Seri and Anguissa, Shurrle and TFM on loan, most were happy with that, and thought that we would do well - as did I. This constant re writing of history to point out that we now decry what happened is like a scene out of 1984 ("Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia").
Yes I hate this car crash of a season, but the constant revisionist sniping is overkill.
It's all very tiring I know and partly one reason why I'm not engaging in many discussions' on here at the moment.
The lines are drawn by many and the enemy as they see it are everyone who works at the club at this time in any position. Everything Slav touched was gold and anything done or attributed to others is complete rubbish.
It just hasn't worked out this season, crap happens and we are on the receiving end of it this year.
As fan you get on with it, do the best you can in supporting this club with a rational open mind to things as they are. It doesn't mean you agree with everything going on and wouldn't want better from the club, far from it, but some would be better to step back, read what they have written and see how off the scale some of it is.
Quote from: snarks on February 18, 2019, 01:00:36 PM
I don't get this, I really don't. At the time we signed Fabri and Mawson, got Chambers in on loan, signed Mitro, Seri and Anguissa, Shurrle and TFM on loan, most were happy with that, and thought that we would do well - as did I. This constant re writing of history to point out that we now decry what happened is like a scene out of 1984 ("Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia").
Yes I hate this car crash of a season, but the constant revisionist sniping is overkill.
But your wrong, Oceania have always been at war with Eurasia. I am not even sure what the problem is whether the recruitment, coaching or players is the problem.
We were happy ish as far as possible with there being no meaningful pre season training. Who wouldn't be, the most money spent by a newly promoted team. Surely that makes our recruitment excuses even less valid. To have spent that amount and then to have had the season we've had so far is inexcusable. They are meant to be the experts arnt they. How can you argue they don't deserve to lose their jobs. Most people in this site would lose their jobs if they displayed that level of incompetence. Not just this season. We might forgive that, but eight windows on the trot. Two injured centre backs on the bounce in the last six months. Come on
Is there a report of the meeting on here ? - I can't find one.
Quote from: Matt10 on February 18, 2019, 12:26:52 PM
So are we creating the narrative that those who work in the scouting/recruiting department just take the months off until January or something? Even then, is there no transcript in which someone in the trust asks the actual question: "Don't you lot find targets before the January transfer window opens"? Surely not, probably because it is a stupid thing to ask, let alone assume.
Surely we can't be that defiant to our club that we assume this is how it operates. Let's just give the benefit of the doubt that there is much, much, more to the story than we're assuming.
I think AM did a good job in explaining why we didn't get who we wanted, either because the club wanted to perform the deal, but the player did not, or vice versa.
Benefit of the doubt???
Your'e having a laugh!!!
I find it hard to accept the current predominant mantra, that those involved in the running of FFC, including signing new players, aren't doing their very best to ensure the club does well, and stays in the Prem, even though mistakes may have been made.
I accept the explanation that it was hard to close deals on potential signings in the past window- in which few players moved anywhere, despite the strong efforts made.
Apart from anything else, it's surely very much in the interests of everyone involved in running the club, including TK and AM, that Fulham prosper and do well.
Quote from: RaySmith on February 18, 2019, 03:28:24 PM
I find it hard to accept the current predominant mantra, that those involved in the running of FFC, including signing new players, aren't doing their very best to ensure the club does well, and stays in the Prem, even though mistakes may have been made.
I accept the explanation that it was hard to close deals on potential signings in the past window- in which few players moved anywhere, despite the strong efforts made.
Apart from anything else, it's surely very much in the interests of everyone involved in running the club, including TK and AM, that Fulham prosper and do well.
I wouldn't argue with what you say here but when SK bought the club in 2013, allegedly for £150 -£200m, I was amazed that he didn't protect that investment better at that time.
Quote from: Southcoastffc on February 18, 2019, 04:29:35 PM
I wouldn't argue with what you say here but when SK bought the club in 2013, allegedly for £150 -£200m, I was amazed that he didn't protect that investment better at that time.
[/quote]
I'm sure he tried, I think going for 3 managers in a season is an indication of that, let alone signing mitroglou, it's a pity he picked Felix, but his reputation made it a worthwhile gamble (just completely wrong)
Quote from: Statto on February 18, 2019, 10:38:48 AM
I particularly like this quote:
"AM reiterated that Tony Khan is... very knowledgeable about football in great detail."
I'm sure he's "very knowledgeable about (NFL) football in great detail". He just seems to know squat about Association football.
I found the final points about planning for next season interesting.
AM suggested many players are on either short term deals, loans, or have relegation clauses. Also, that the club will receive parachute payments.
This sounds like AM has financially planned for relegation.
However, there is no mention that an on-field plan has been made for next season. I.e. I would've asked HJ who he felt could make the step up to the first team and how he has prepared his young players in advance of this eg lack of loans for S Sessagnon etc. Furthermore, AM made no mention of having any contingency plans for potential managers or Championship targets which personally I would've begun resolving this January.
Having a solid financial plan is important to keep the club afloat, however we also need solid on-field plans and that is where a DoF should really come in!
Quote from: MJG on February 18, 2019, 01:10:44 PM
Quote from: snarks on February 18, 2019, 01:00:36 PM
I don't get this, I really don't. At the time we signed Fabri and Mawson, got Chambers in on loan, signed Mitro, Seri and Anguissa, Shurrle and TFM on loan, most were happy with that, and thought that we would do well - as did I. This constant re writing of history to point out that we now decry what happened is like a scene out of 1984 ("Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia").
Yes I hate this car crash of a season, but the constant revisionist sniping is overkill.
It's all very tiring I know and partly one reason why I'm not engaging in many discussions' on here at the moment.
The lines are drawn by many and the enemy as they see it are everyone who works at the club at this time in any position. Everything Slav touched was gold and anything done or attributed to others is complete rubbish.
It just hasn't worked out this season, crap happens and we are on the receiving end of it this year.
As fan you get on with it, do the best you can in supporting this club with a rational open mind to things as they are. It doesn't mean you agree with everything going on and wouldn't want better from the club, far from it, but some would be better to step back, read what they have written and see how off the scale some of it is.
That's it right there. Well said, Mike.
Quote from: RaySmith on February 18, 2019, 03:28:24 PM
I find it hard to accept the current predominant mantra, that those involved in the running of FFC, including signing new players, aren't doing their very best to ensure the club does well, and stays in the Prem, even though mistakes may have been made.
I accept the explanation that it was hard to close deals on potential signings in the past window- in which few players moved anywhere, despite the strong efforts made.
Apart from anything else, it's surely very much in the interests of everyone involved in running the club, including TK and AM, that Fulham prosper and do well.
You say "you find it hard to accept" the views of others, I find it very hard to accept the poor quality of our team due to those in charge of recruitment, considering the money spent.
Also, I have worked with plenty of people who do "their very best" but their very best just wasn't good enough and were found wanting.
For the record again, I think we have good owners I just wish they would sort out the recruitment.
I think you are far too accepting of poor results from those in charge.
I said that I find it hard to accept that they aren't doing their best.
I also think that those of us outside the process don't know the difficulties there might be in getting he right players to come to Fulham.
Quote from: MJG on February 18, 2019, 01:10:44 PM
Quote from: snarks on February 18, 2019, 01:00:36 PM
I don't get this, I really don't. At the time we signed Fabri and Mawson, got Chambers in on loan, signed Mitro, Seri and Anguissa, Shurrle and TFM on loan, most were happy with that, and thought that we would do well - as did I. This constant re writing of history to point out that we now decry what happened is like a scene out of 1984 ("Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia").
Yes I hate this car crash of a season, but the constant revisionist sniping is overkill.
It's all very tiring I know and partly one reason why I'm not engaging in many discussions' on here at the moment.
The lines are drawn by many and the enemy as they see it are everyone who works at the club at this time in any position. Everything Slav touched was gold and anything done or attributed to others is complete rubbish.
It just hasn't worked out this season, crap happens and we are on the receiving end of it this year.
As fan you get on with it, do the best you can in supporting this club with a rational open mind to things as they are. It doesn't mean you agree with everything going on and wouldn't want better from the club, far from it, but some would be better to step back, read what they have written and see how off the scale some of it is.
If I may.
I think you will find we were all concerned the squad was lacking in many areas and that too many players arrived late. However we were all astonished at the vast quantity of money that came in a rush.
But how many of the players did anyone really know? Unfortunately lots of dosh for very little quality and no full backs or fit central defenders. I think we are entitled to be disillusioned.
The lack of meaningful action in January has made things very much more disapointing.
Chambers was a fit central defender. MLM was a fit central defender/LB Bryan was a LB that had performed very well in the Championship. Yes the late arrival was an issue, but no one was panicking over it, concerned maybe, but that was all. It was the same with AFZA's arrival people were talking about his performance in the Europa league final.
Hindsight is fantastic but we are all guilty of looking at the transfer window like that now.
Quote from: Fulham1959 on February 18, 2019, 02:29:57 PM
Is there a report of the meeting on here ? - I can't find one.
Anyone ?
Quote from: RaySmith on February 18, 2019, 05:26:10 PM
I said that I find it hard to accept that they aren't doing their best.
I also think that those of us outside the process don't know the difficulties there might be in getting he right players to come to Fulham.
If they are doing their best, then it's nowhere near good enough and totally unacceptable.
As the proof of the pudding is in the eating. They stumble from one pantomime to another, very much like the three Stooges Larry Mo and Curly use to do in their black and white films ( note same colours as Fulham ).
But I also doubt that they do not even know what is best, as their abysmal record shows.
There are three kinds of stock, Light Brown for Chicken Stock, Dark Brown for Beef Stock, and Black & White for Laughing Stock.
But this is no laughing matter, here we are in February with no imminent sign of a recovery, waiting for a miracle to happen.
If miracles do happen then it has to start from Friday right through to the 12th May inclusive.
Quote from: Fulham1959 on February 19, 2019, 01:34:41 PM
Quote from: Fulham1959 on February 18, 2019, 02:29:57 PM
Is there a report of the meeting on here ? - I can't find one.
Anyone ?
Yes there is, as you can tell it's not under the usual heading and I can't remember where it is. Ask Hovewhite though as he referenced it in the riverside stand thread
Quote from: snarks on February 19, 2019, 02:40:50 PM
Quote from: Fulham1959 on February 19, 2019, 01:34:41 PM
Quote from: Fulham1959 on February 18, 2019, 02:29:57 PM
Is there a report of the meeting on here ? - I can't find one.
Anyone ?
Yes there is, as you can tell it's not under the usual heading and I can't remember where it is. Ask Hovewhite though as he referenced it in the riverside stand thread
http://fulhamsupporterstrust.com/
HEADLINES
Zara Harrison book of condolence available to sign
Riverside Stand plans on track and unaffected by possible relegation
Detailed planning for Riverside season ticket holder relocation underway
Ticket sales policy for 'Final Six' home games questioned
Season ticket exchange scheme not introduced this season
Modifications to non-standing away seats proposed
Club vote for £30 away ticket cap in response to Trust request
Transfer window reviewed
Context requested for diversity survey
ATTENDEES
On Monday 11 February 2019, Alistair Mackintosh (AM, Chief Executive), David Daly (DD, Non Executive Director), Huw Jennings (HJ, Academy Director), Carmelo Mifsud (CM, Media Relations Manager), Peter Spartin (PS, Head of Commercial Development) and Nicola Walworth (NW, Supporter Relations Manager) of Fulham Football Club met with Ian Clarke, Sue Couch and Tom Greatrex of the Fulham Supporters' Trust at Motspur Park as part of the structured dialogue between both parties.
ZARA HARRISON
The Trust offered condolences on behalf of our members and Fulham fans to the family, friends and colleagues of Zara Harrison at the Club after the sad news of her passing. The Trust plan to send a wreath on behalf of supporters, and encourages supporters who wish to extend their thoughts to Zara's family to sign the book of condolence.
JOHNNY HAYNES TROPHY
The Trust thanked HJ and the Club for the handover ceremony for the Johnny Haynes Trophy for the FST Academy Player of the Year. Home-grown players are very much appreciated by fans, and the Trust has had a lot of positive feedback on the decision to sponsor the award and to recognise progress made by the future playing talent at Fulham. AM and HJ thanked the Trust for this initiative, and sponsoring the Trophy. CM confirmed there would be content on the Club website and other channels about the Trophy as its first winner is announced.
RIVERSIDE STAND – PROJECT UPDATE
The Trust asked for an update on development of the Riverside Stand, and progress towards the stated start date for demolition shortly after the end of the current season. AM responded that this is taking up most of his time, and the Club is in the tender phase for sub-contracts having previously appointed a lead contractor. The Club is aiming to place all of the main tendered packages by the end of April through the main contractor.
The Trust asked whether a delay in the award of any of these packages would impact upon starting demolition work of the Riverside Stand. AM responded that all tenders have been invited on the basis of a start of work by the end of May. It was clarified that the pitch is used for some events for the period immediately after the end of the season, which is why work is scheduled to begin at the end of May.
The Trust also pressed on whether possible relegation would impact on commencing work on the stand. AM replied that the division the Club is in is irrelevant to the timescales for work starting on the Riverside Stand.
The Trust then asked for further details on other developments on the stand build plan since the last meeting. AM and PS explained that detailed planning work is being undertaken by the lead contractor which will establish the extent of any other work required; asked for an example, AM mentioned access behind the Hammersmith End may need to be widened by taking out the 'mound' at the back of the stand.
RIVERSIDE STAND – RELOCATION OF SEASON TICKET HOLDERS
In response to a series of questions in relation to the relocation of supporters from the Riverside Stand, PS reiterated that the Club valued the engagement of the Trust and working group on this, and acknowledged the desire of many season ticket holders to continue to be seated with the groups they have been part of for some time. The Trust also set out the importance of relocated Riverside season ticket holders having the opportunity to return to the new stand when it is completed. PS indicated this is being taken on board, and appreciates the move will cause disruption.
The Trust also underlined the importance of direct communications with those who will need to be relocated, and PS and CM agreed, also highlighting they have taken note of how Bristol City managed a similar exercise during the construction of the new main stand at Ashton Gate.
Asked about timescales for beginning this process and renewal of season tickets in the affected areas, PS explained that it is dependent on finalising detailed information about available capacity next season. The Trust requested the opportunity to sense check the forthcoming survey on the Riverside Stand, which PS agreed to do, to help ensure the responses were of as much assistance as possible.
The Trust reiterated that, appreciating there are limited options available to the Club for relocation of Riverside season ticket holders, many understood there would be disruption but wanted to be able to sit close to their current groups, and to be able to have first refusal on similar seats in the new stand. PS welcomed this feedback, and confirmed that Riverside season ticket holders who renew and are relocated will have first priority on seats in the new stand as had been requested by the Trust on their behalf. However, seasonal hospitality may precede depending on the type of seat/product.
TICKETING – FINAL SIX AND LIVERPOOL FIXTURE
The Trust highlighted the significant concerns over the way in which the final six home fixtures' ticketing arrangements have been handled, underlining that it is the largest volume of emails ahead of meetings we have ever had on a single subject.
The Trust explained that advertising the on-sale dates with the final cut-off and "last chance" for new membership sales gave an impression of encouraging touts and away fans to purchase with a higher priority than existing season ticket holders. AM responded that the Club had announced priority for members at the start of the season, had to set a cut-off date for memberships, and were keen to encourage Fulham supporters who had not done so to purchase a membership – not encouraging away fans to become members.
The Trust responded that it understood the argument for members being able to purchase a home seat ahead of season ticket holders purchasing additional tickets, but that if this was about enabling that then the Club could and should have set the cut off for the Liverpool fixture at an earlier point, knowing it was most likely to sell out fastest. The Trust also pointed out that if the Club wanted to target Fulham fans who have not bought a membership, they know who those fans are, in the same way that individuals were previously targeted to be offered a half season ticket through their purchase history.
AM agreed that the Club had taken an aggressive stance on membership sales to maximise an opportunity to increase memberships. The Trust reminded the Club that season ticket holders were their most valuable supporter base, and this approach created a perception of the Club putting revenue ahead of loyal and long-standing supporters.
The Trust asked how many members the Club currently has, and how many had taken out memberships between announcing ticketing arrangements for the last six home games and the cut off deadline. PS responded that the Club did not have those figures to hand.
The Trust further explained that the Club's positions on season ticket upgrades and the Liverpool ticket sales could be viewed as contradictory, with the former said to be in place to minimise touting but the latter likely to increase the chance of memberships and tickets falling into the hands of touts.
AM stated that he would like to see the ground as full as possible of Fulham fans – the more Fulham fans the better.
TICKETING – SEASON TICKET EXCHANGE
Having raised this a number of times in previous meetings, the Trust had been disappointed to be informed that the promised season ticket exchange scheme was not going to be introduced. PS explained that it was due to start with the Spurs game, but that match had not sold quickly enough for it to be implemented, and only the Manchester United and Liverpool fixtures had sold out early enough. The Club felt it was too much resource to dedicate for two fixtures alone.
The Trust expressed its disappointment again, and pointed out that similar schemes are commonplace at many clubs. This decision, allied with the final six ticketing policy, left many season ticket holders feeling let down. The Trust asked that with the prospect of a reduced capacity, and a greater proportion of season tickets to general sale tickets next season, such a scheme is introduced for next season as part of a package to maximise the number of Fulham fans in the ground. The Club is looking at this again, along with other suggestions from the Trust on ticketing for next season.
TICKETING – AWAY TICKETS
The Trust reported back on some issues encountered at Crystal Palace with the hitherto largely successful trial of non-standing seats for away fixtures. Fulham fans purchasing non-standing seats have shown consideration and understanding since they were introduced, however at Selhurst Park while the front rows of two blocks had non-standing seats, the third block (T) did not. This meant that those in the non-standing seats had their view disrupted. This impacted more at Palace because away fans are alongside the pitch rather than behind a goal or in a corner. The Trust suggested that in future all blocks are used for non-standing seats but with fewer rows if necessary.
The Trust asked why some away fixtures are sold at 4, some at 2 and some at 1 ticket per supporter with the requisite number of loyalty points. AM responded that it was based on anticipated sales, considering distance, day of fixture, number of proximate away fixtures and previous sales patterns. The Club don't want to have empty seats in away allocations which have to be paid for in full.
The Trust asked that for the Bournemouth and Watford fixtures, both currently scheduled to be played on Saturday at 3pm, given smaller allocations and relative closeness of grounds, that early information is made available. NW explained that often the delay in beginning sales for away fixtures is due to late information received from the host clubs.
TICKETING – AWAY TICKET PRICE CAP
AM reported that at the previous week's Premier League meeting, Fulham had voted in favour of continuing the £30 cap for away tickets for the next three year period. This had been in response to representations made by the Trust in previous meetings. The Trust thanked AM and the Club for taking these views on board, and voting accordingly.
TRANSFER WINDOW
The Trust asked AM to set out the approach to the recent transfer window, how successful the Club had felt recruitment had been, and what lessons there are for future transfer windows.
AM explained that many potential and prospective transfers are discussed from the start of the window, but often are not concluded until the deadline due to availability of players to replace them. AM would prefer to do business as early as possible, but it's not always possible to control that. It was a quieter market than in previous windows, with a lower number of moves than usual – no Premier League club brought in more than three players, as Fulham did. AM explained that the priority was to seek to strengthen the defence, and guidelines were relaxed to seek to recruit defensive reinforcement. AM also said that Ryan Babel had improved attacking options available to the Manager since he had joined part way through the window.
The Trust pointed out that during the last January window all the players coming in were uninjured and playing in the English league, so needed less time to adjust and were able to make an immediate contribution; this wasn't the case this time. AM responded that the incoming players had English league experience, and the availability of players was limited in this window. There were deals agreed with clubs where players decided against the move, and with a player where the owning club were not prepared to sell because a replacement had not been signed. This means deals can fall through late in the window and on deadline day, despite the best of intentions and serious effort being put in weeks in advance.
The Trust asked about signings only on short term contracts. AM responded that other potential transfers were for longer periods, but were not able to be completed for various reasons. AM also explained that season long loan deals can vary, but are usually able to be terminated only with agreement from both clubs and the player involved, which can work for or against a club with a loan player, depending on performances.
The Trust asked whether the Director of Football would have additional support on his football responsibilities given the range of other sporting activity he is involved in. AM reiterated that Tony Khan is very committed to Fulham, and that he is very knowledgeable about football in great detail. It is also the case that he has a team supporting him, on scouting, on analysis of players and performance data.
The Trust requested that given the level of interest in the way in which transfers are undertaken, some content should be produced for Fulham TV and/or the website explaining the process in more detail – as other clubs have recently done, for example Wolves where John Marshall is Head of Recruitment.
The Trust asked about use of specific agents, given some of the media coverage from the sad death of Emiliano Sala. AM explained that the Club's players have a wide spread of agents and agencies, and the Club does not have a policy of using specific agents. There is a range in the services agencies offer to players; some provide assistance with practical issues – accommodation, cars etc – others only negotiate transfers on behalf of players or clubs.
HJ explained that agents were banned for players until they reach their 16thbirthday. Asked whether most academy players were represented by agents, HJ confirmed that was the case for most players once they reach 16 and agencies will contact players' families to seek to represent them.
OTHER ISSUES
DIVERSITY SURVEY
The Trust reported that members had been in contact about the recent diversity survey, with concerns about the reasons for the survey, how the information would be used and about the way in which the questions were constructed. The Trust had benefited from the discussion at the January meeting, and reflected it in the notes of that meeting, but if some context had been provided with the survey it might have helped elicit more responses.
PS explained that the questionnaire was produced by a third party, designed specifically to provoke consideration of issues, and the Club had little input on the questions. AM noted that there had been a high return rate, and that this was part of an exercise associated with research across the Premier League.
The Trust suggested that contextual information should be provided in all future surveys to help maximise responses, and should be provided with any reminders for this survey.
KICK IT OUT REPORTING NUMBER AND ANNIVERSARY
Trust members had requested that the facility provided by Kick It Out to report racial abuse on matchday be publicised more frequently. CM agreed to look into announcing it more frequently, and the possibility of displaying it on the electronic scoreboard.
The Trust noted that it was Kick It Out's 25th anniversary, and that the Premier League wanted to highlight work done by clubs to coincide with the Kick It Out weekends in March. The Trust offered to support and amplify what the Club was planning for the relevant home fixture (Manchester City)
MEDICAL TEAM UPDATES
The Trust requested that updates on players recovering from injuries be reinstated on the website and/or Fulham TV – they were popular in the past, and would be a welcome feature. CM agreed to do so.
Since the meeting the first such update has been produced by the Club.
PLANNING FOR NEXT SEASON
In addition to the points raised earlier in the meeting and at previous meetings on ticketing, the Trust asked about planning for next season given the possibility of playing in the Championship. AM responded that all at the Club were working hard to seek to stay in the Premier League and was confident that was achievable. However, a number of players were on short or loan contracts, or their contracts were due to expire. Others have relegation wage clauses. He also confirmed that clubs relegated the season after promotion receive parachute payments for two years.
The meeting, which started at 12.30pm, concluded at 3.15pm
thank you Statto
Quote from: Matt10 on February 18, 2019, 12:26:52 PM
So are we creating the narrative that those who work in the scouting/recruiting department just take the months off until January or something? Even then, is there no transcript in which someone in the trust asks the actual question: "Don't you lot find targets before the January transfer window opens"? Surely not, probably because it is a stupid thing to ask, let alone assume.
Surely we can't be that defiant to our club that we assume this is how it operates. Let's just give the benefit of the doubt that there is much, much, more to the story than we're assuming.
I think AM did a good job in explaining why we didn't get who we wanted, either because the club wanted to perform the deal, but the player did not, or vice versa.
I guess you'd put me in the stupid camp then, Matt10, because I'd have expected AM to say (as a legal representative might have suggested to him to in a more profound setting), that 'We track all our anticipated playing targets continuously for availability, for price, for priority, and for suitability for purpose' gently hinting that the process is not bound by windows at all.
Of course any answer would still be open to ridicule at a certain level, for example, failure to deliver the potentially suitable and required recruits. But in the setting, an FST meeting, and the context, lateness of activity, it really is a lame if anticipated response from AM, and if you really cannot see that then I feel sorry for you. AM's response and your unintended implication either reduces FST meetings to the level of farce or points to the fact that AM should be better prepared facing legitimate questions from our representatives if he chooses to take them as seriously as the meeting warrants.
I have served on similar panels in my lifetime and I know how tedious they can be and how evasive answers are.
Quote from: snarks on February 19, 2019, 09:40:16 AM
Chambers was a fit central defender. MLM was a fit central defender/LB Bryan was a LB that had performed very well in the Championship. Yes the late arrival was an issue, but no one was panicking over it, concerned maybe, but that was all. It was the same with AFZA's arrival people were talking about his performance in the Europa league final.
Hindsight is fantastic but we are all guilty of looking at the transfer window like that now.
Many of us knew Chambers was not all that at CB and Bryan was just an OK Championship LB. Reading up then MLM was not rated in France and just being offloaded with Seri.
No hindsight, the incoming players were always a gamble and to think otherwise is eyebrow raising.
Quote from: toshes mate on February 19, 2019, 04:49:19 PM
Quote from: Matt10 on February 18, 2019, 12:26:52 PM
So are we creating the narrative that those who work in the scouting/recruiting department just take the months off until January or something? Even then, is there no transcript in which someone in the trust asks the actual question: "Don't you lot find targets before the January transfer window opens"? Surely not, probably because it is a stupid thing to ask, let alone assume.
Surely we can't be that defiant to our club that we assume this is how it operates. Let's just give the benefit of the doubt that there is much, much, more to the story than we're assuming.
I think AM did a good job in explaining why we didn't get who we wanted, either because the club wanted to perform the deal, but the player did not, or vice versa.
I guess you'd put me in the stupid camp then, Matt10, because I'd have expected AM to say (as a legal representative might have suggested to him to in a more profound setting), that 'We track all our anticipated playing targets continuously for availability, for price, for priority, and for suitability for purpose' gently hinting that the process is not bound by windows at all.
Of course any answer would still be open to ridicule at a certain level, for example, failure to deliver the potentially suitable and required recruits. But in the setting, an FST meeting, and the context, lateness of activity, it really is a lame if anticipated response from AM, and if you really cannot see that then I feel sorry for you. AM's response and your unintended implication either reduces FST meetings to the level of farce or points to the fact that AM should be better prepared facing legitimate questions from our representatives if he chooses to take them as seriously as the meeting warrants.
I have served on similar panels in my lifetime and I know how tedious they can be and how evasive answers are.
I'm not putting anyone into a camp. I'm simply stating that if it's such an obvious question, why didn't anyone ask it? Why didn't anyone ask "So...what have your recruiting been doing before window?"
It's a stupid question. It's based on assumptions that are built from a mountain of momentum through the negativity of keyboard warriors.
Feel sorry for me all you want. You want to act like Fulham is your customer service hotline, and they need to say everything exactly to the way you want it, if not - then it's not good enough. Well, go figure, things aren't already going to be good enough because of the position we are in, right?
"My answer is we had players ready to sign, but then changed their mind. Or clubs not reaching back out to us when we're trying to complete a deal. Or we're so low in the table that noone wants to be part of a relegation battle, that also includes a relegation clause."
Customer: "That's not a good enough answer."
"Okay, did you ask the question to hear the answer, or did you ask for me to say what you wanted to hear?"
Quote from: Matt10 on February 19, 2019, 05:11:45 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on February 19, 2019, 04:49:19 PM
Quote from: Matt10 on February 18, 2019, 12:26:52 PM
So are we creating the narrative that those who work in the scouting/recruiting department just take the months off until January or something? Even then, is there no transcript in which someone in the trust asks the actual question: "Don't you lot find targets before the January transfer window opens"? Surely not, probably because it is a stupid thing to ask, let alone assume.
Surely we can't be that defiant to our club that we assume this is how it operates. Let's just give the benefit of the doubt that there is much, much, more to the story than we're assuming.
I think AM did a good job in explaining why we didn't get who we wanted, either because the club wanted to perform the deal, but the player did not, or vice versa.
I guess you'd put me in the stupid camp then, Matt10, because I'd have expected AM to say (as a legal representative might have suggested to him to in a more profound setting), that 'We track all our anticipated playing targets continuously for availability, for price, for priority, and for suitability for purpose' gently hinting that the process is not bound by windows at all.
Of course any answer would still be open to ridicule at a certain level, for example, failure to deliver the potentially suitable and required recruits. But in the setting, an FST meeting, and the context, lateness of activity, it really is a lame if anticipated response from AM, and if you really cannot see that then I feel sorry for you. AM's response and your unintended implication either reduces FST meetings to the level of farce or points to the fact that AM should be better prepared facing legitimate questions from our representatives if he chooses to take them as seriously as the meeting warrants.
I have served on similar panels in my lifetime and I know how tedious they can be and how evasive answers are.
I'm not putting anyone into a camp. I'm simply stating that if it's such an obvious question, why didn't anyone ask it? Why didn't anyone ask "So...what have your recruiting been doing before window?"
It's a stupid question. It's based on assumptions that are built from a mountain of momentum through the negativity of keyboard warriors.
Feel sorry for me all you want. You want to act like Fulham is your customer service hotline, and they need to say everything exactly to the way you want it, if not - then it's not good enough. Well, go figure, things aren't already going to be good enough because of the position we are in, right?
"My answer is we had players ready to sign, but then changed their mind. Or clubs not reaching back out to us when we're trying to complete a deal. Or we're so low in the table that noone wants to be part of a relegation battle, that also includes a relegation clause."
Customer: "That's not a good enough answer."
"Okay, did you ask the question to hear the answer, or did you ask for me to say what you wanted to hear?"
as someone who has been in these meetings we have asked and reported back on the transfer process a million times. Of course they track all the time, their list updates after every game played and each player updated on scouts reports and stats updates.
These are notes not a transcript and when you have had the same question and discussion again and again over last four or five years it's not going to go into as much depth each time.
Quote from: MJG on February 19, 2019, 05:38:49 PM
Quote from: Matt10 on February 19, 2019, 05:11:45 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on February 19, 2019, 04:49:19 PM
Quote from: Matt10 on February 18, 2019, 12:26:52 PM
So are we creating the narrative that those who work in the scouting/recruiting department just take the months off until January or something? Even then, is there no transcript in which someone in the trust asks the actual question: "Don't you lot find targets before the January transfer window opens"? Surely not, probably because it is a stupid thing to ask, let alone assume.
Surely we can't be that defiant to our club that we assume this is how it operates. Let's just give the benefit of the doubt that there is much, much, more to the story than we're assuming.
I think AM did a good job in explaining why we didn't get who we wanted, either because the club wanted to perform the deal, but the player did not, or vice versa.
I guess you'd put me in the stupid camp then, Matt10, because I'd have expected AM to say (as a legal representative might have suggested to him to in a more profound setting), that 'We track all our anticipated playing targets continuously for availability, for price, for priority, and for suitability for purpose' gently hinting that the process is not bound by windows at all.
Of course any answer would still be open to ridicule at a certain level, for example, failure to deliver the potentially suitable and required recruits. But in the setting, an FST meeting, and the context, lateness of activity, it really is a lame if anticipated response from AM, and if you really cannot see that then I feel sorry for you. AM's response and your unintended implication either reduces FST meetings to the level of farce or points to the fact that AM should be better prepared facing legitimate questions from our representatives if he chooses to take them as seriously as the meeting warrants.
I have served on similar panels in my lifetime and I know how tedious they can be and how evasive answers are.
I'm not putting anyone into a camp. I'm simply stating that if it's such an obvious question, why didn't anyone ask it? Why didn't anyone ask "So...what have your recruiting been doing before window?"
It's a stupid question. It's based on assumptions that are built from a mountain of momentum through the negativity of keyboard warriors.
Feel sorry for me all you want. You want to act like Fulham is your customer service hotline, and they need to say everything exactly to the way you want it, if not - then it's not good enough. Well, go figure, things aren't already going to be good enough because of the position we are in, right?
"My answer is we had players ready to sign, but then changed their mind. Or clubs not reaching back out to us when we're trying to complete a deal. Or we're so low in the table that noone wants to be part of a relegation battle, that also includes a relegation clause."
Customer: "That's not a good enough answer."
"Okay, did you ask the question to hear the answer, or did you ask for me to say what you wanted to hear?"
as someone who has been in these meetings we have asked and reported back on the transfer process a million times. Of course they track all the time, their list updates after every game played and each player updated on scouts reports and stats updates.
These are notes not a transcript and when you have had the same question and discussion again and again over last four or five years it's not going to go into as much depth each time.
At last, a SENSIBLE comment on this thread. Thanks MJG
It seems to me that whatever is said by who and to who in these meetings it is unlikely the CEO and owners will be able to be totally transparent in what they say.
Whatever AM thinks of TK, he cannot say publicly because the man's dad pays his wages. I have been in a very similar situation and you really have to watch your words, especislly iwhen spoken n public.
In the end they can say what they like at these meetings, and our fans report it brilliantly, but over 5 years our transfer policy has been dreadful especially last summer. If that is not acknowedged by our owner and his team we will continue to decline. I do not accept for a second what AM said at the meeting as reported here about the January window. I believe they had either given up on the season already, or, more likely, failed miserably to strengthen because of inexperience and lack of competence. The market may have been slow but we were very closely linked with a few available names that might have been just what we needed. If they were serious, we could have got full backs as a minimum.
AM is the CEO, eother his unable to offer good council, or his council is ignored. Whichever it is, I am suprised his position seems to be so secure.
I fail to understand why AM and TK and everyone involved, wouldn't be doing their utmost to bring in urgently required players in the last window.
I believe AM when he says all efforts were made, but unsuccessful for reasons outside Fulham's control.
Why would he not make such efforts? It's very much in his own interests and TK's, and everyone employed by the club, for the club to stay up.
You don't know what happened, what problems there were in bringing players in.
Quote from: RaySmith on February 19, 2019, 08:53:44 PM
I fail to understand why AM and TK and everyone involved, wouldn't be doing their utmost to bring in urgently required players in the last window.
I believe AM when he says all efforts were made, but unsuccessful for reasons outside Fulham's control.
Why would he not make such efforts? It's very much in his own interests and TK's, and everyone employed by the club, for the club to stay up.
You don't know what happened, what problems there were in bringing players in.
Did people say that they were not trying? How do we know whether they tried hard enough or not? I do know our mnanagement certainly gave all the impression of not trying but that is just observation and which could never be entertained as fact.
What we do know is we failed because they (our management) are not capable of succeeding in transfer policy as has been proved by 11 extremely underwhelming transfer windows emtirely based on flawed thinking and inexperienced people taking the lead. With half a season to go and masses of points to play for, I feel certain that in the whole football playing world, there are two full backs and one decent center half available that arecurrently fit and could have been tempted here with a reasonable amount of money. The consequence of going down and staying down for several seasons swamps the outlay for these three players, as a minimum. AM comment the market is slow, smacks of couldn't care less and just papering over the failings of the transfer team.
We have all seen many years of football, good and bad with Fulham. We all knew the good guys and we also know the ones that are not capable, and that is what we have in our current head of transfers.
And a useful reminder that anyone can read notes and other useful info at http://fulhamsupporterstrust.com And, of course, can join the FST at only £10 p.a., or £5 for concessions.
Quote from: RaySmith on February 19, 2019, 08:53:44 PM
I fail to understand why AM and TK and everyone involved, wouldn't be doing their utmost to bring in urgently required players in the last window.
I believe AM when he says all efforts were made, but unsuccessful for reasons outside Fulham's control.
Why would he not make such efforts? It's very much in his own interests and TK's, and everyone employed by the club, for the club to stay up.
You don't know what happened, what problems there were in bringing players in.
Of course just like any other employee AM will hopefully be trying to justify his wages/salary and whatever other benefits he receives from his employment. But TK is another matter altogether, a situation obscured (for want of a better word) by nepotism.
Players make efforts to play, in a public arena, and all of us have an opportunity to, in our own way, make judgements about them. Whilst we may all tend to having common longer term memory issues as we get older it is largely short term information influenced by built in prejudices that colours our present understanding of player performance and fitness for purpose. We seem to know with certainty where the flaws are and yet our analysis may be as different as the numbers of people contributing to it even at single game level (MOTM for example).
For those in the recruitment arena the points of focus are the windows, the kinds of players we seem to chase, the ones we do not get versus the ones we do get. Again the reception of a performance is fairly wide and although there may be a stronger performance strength somewhere in the middle (there always is) it is still at the more extreme distributions that truth may be found, especially when taking several windows together. It is then that doubts about performance may be aroused and when there is no explanation as to 'lessons learned' (part of the FST question) then one can understand the apathy shown by fans because it would be just as readily felt in a football match where the same mistakes are occurring from the same players.
I ask you what the difference is that recruitment should some how be protected from investigation, report, inquiry, and change? That is what happens to players/coaches/;managers all the time and so why not other employees including owners and their family?
Quote from: ALG01 on February 19, 2019, 09:19:30 PM
Quote from: RaySmith on February 19, 2019, 08:53:44 PM
I fail to understand why AM and TK and everyone involved, wouldn't be doing their utmost to bring in urgently required players in the last window.
I believe AM when he says all efforts were made, but unsuccessful for reasons outside Fulham's control.
Why would he not make such efforts? It's very much in his own interests and TK's, and everyone employed by the club, for the club to stay up.
You don't know what happened, what problems there were in bringing players in.
Did people say that they were not trying? How do we know whether they tried hard enough or not? I do know our mnanagement certainly gave all the impression of not trying but that is just observation and which could never be entertained as fact.
What we do know is we failed because they (our management) are not capable of succeeding in transfer policy as has been proved by 11 extremely underwhelming transfer windows emtirely based on flawed thinking and inexperienced people taking the lead. With half a season to go and masses of points to play for, I feel certain that in the whole football playing world, there are two full backs and one decent center half available that arecurrently fit and could have been tempted here with a reasonable amount of money. The consequence of going down and staying down for several seasons swamps the outlay for these three players, as a minimum. AM comment the market is slow, smacks of couldn't care less and just papering over the failings of the transfer team.
We have all seen many years of football, good and bad with Fulham. We all knew the good guys and we also know the ones that are not capable, and that is what we have in our current head of transfers.
I think the bolded part is what we do "know" (under the assumption that we agree that the team needed, and tried to acquire, more reinforcements, which is something I believe most of us agree on including those responsible). What you write after that is not something we know however, but instead your speculation as to why we failed. However reasonable and well presented that speculation is, it does not equal fact. Many "failed" transfer windows would indeed indicate that our transfer team is not up to par. However, when you state things like "flawed thinking" it is unclear what you mean. In any case, couldn't it be flawed execution instead of flawed thinking? Or maybe both?
I also don't know why you need to speak for "all", since I believe it is better to leave other people to have their own opinions. I think that you will find that in most cases many on here is not in full agreement on who "the good" and "the bad" are. In the present case, I believe for example that our transfer team did try their best, and worked hard throughout the window. I am increasingly worried however that their best may never really cut it.
Quote from: toshes mate on February 20, 2019, 09:09:05 AM
Quote from: RaySmith on February 19, 2019, 08:53:44 PM
I fail to understand why AM and TK and everyone involved, wouldn't be doing their utmost to bring in urgently required players in the last window.
I believe AM when he says all efforts were made, but unsuccessful for reasons outside Fulham's control.
Why would he not make such efforts? It's very much in his own interests and TK's, and everyone employed by the club, for the club to stay up.
You don't know what happened, what problems there were in bringing players in.
Of course just like any other employee AM will hopefully be trying to justify his wages/salary and whatever other benefits he receives from his employment. But TK is another matter altogether, a situation obscured (for want of a better word) by nepotism.
Players make efforts to play, in a public arena, and all of us have an opportunity to, in our own way, make judgements about them. Whilst we may all tend to having common longer term memory issues as we get older it is largely short term information influenced by built in prejudices that colours our present understanding of player performance and fitness for purpose. We seem to know with certainty where the flaws are and yet our analysis may be as different as the numbers of people contributing to it even at single game level (MOTM for example).
For those in the recruitment arena the points of focus are the windows, the kinds of players we seem to chase, the ones we do not get versus the ones we do get. Again the reception of a performance is fairly wide and although there may be a stronger performance strength somewhere in the middle (there always is) it is still at the more extreme distributions that truth may be found, especially when taking several windows together. It is then that doubts about performance may be aroused and when there is no explanation as to 'lessons learned' (part of the FST question) then one can understand the apathy shown by fans because it would be just as readily felt in a football match where the same mistakes are occurring from the same players.
I ask you what the difference is that recruitment should some how be protected from investigation, report, inquiry, and change? That is what happens to players/coaches/;managers all the time and so why not other employees including owners and their family?
I think this is a very good post. I also agree that people like TK and AM should be held accountable for their failings. It is not good enough to hide behind arguments that things were outside of the control of the club. I fully believe that they tried, and in many cases I am sure that there was nothing more they could do so I don't think AM is talking BS. But, if that is the case, then you would have to try even harder and keep trying until you succeed. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if it is your "fault" or not since this is a results driven business. Whether or not any reasonable excuses made are sufficient to let you keep your job is then the question of course.
Quote from: Sting of the North on February 20, 2019, 09:48:40 AM
Quote from: toshes mate on February 20, 2019, 09:09:05 AM
Quote from: RaySmith on February 19, 2019, 08:53:44 PM
I fail to understand why AM and TK and everyone involved, wouldn't be doing their utmost to bring in urgently required players in the last window.
I believe AM when he says all efforts were made, but unsuccessful for reasons outside Fulham's control.
Why would he not make such efforts? It's very much in his own interests and TK's, and everyone employed by the club, for the club to stay up.
You don't know what happened, what problems there were in bringing players in.
Of course just like any other employee AM will hopefully be trying to justify his wages/salary and whatever other benefits he receives from his employment. But TK is another matter altogether, a situation obscured (for want of a better word) by nepotism.
Players make efforts to play, in a public arena, and all of us have an opportunity to, in our own way, make judgements about them. Whilst we may all tend to having common longer term memory issues as we get older it is largely short term information influenced by built in prejudices that colours our present understanding of player performance and fitness for purpose. We seem to know with certainty where the flaws are and yet our analysis may be as different as the numbers of people contributing to it even at single game level (MOTM for example).
For those in the recruitment arena the points of focus are the windows, the kinds of players we seem to chase, the ones we do not get versus the ones we do get. Again the reception of a performance is fairly wide and although there may be a stronger performance strength somewhere in the middle (there always is) it is still at the more extreme distributions that truth may be found, especially when taking several windows together. It is then that doubts about performance may be aroused and when there is no explanation as to 'lessons learned' (part of the FST question) then one can understand the apathy shown by fans because it would be just as readily felt in a football match where the same mistakes are occurring from the same players.
I ask you what the difference is that recruitment should some how be protected from investigation, report, inquiry, and change? That is what happens to players/coaches/;managers all the time and so why not other employees including owners and their family?
I think this is a very good post. I also agree that people like TK and AM should be held accountable for their failings. It is not good enough to hide behind arguments that things were outside of the control of the club. I fully believe that they tried, and in many cases I am sure that there was nothing more they could do so I don't think AM is talking BS. But, if that is the case, then you would have to try even harder and keep trying until you succeed. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if it is your "fault" or not since this is a results driven business. Whether or not any reasonable excuses made are sufficient to let you keep your job is then the question of course.
+1
It is a statistical fact that 70% of family businesses fail in second generation
Honestly ..... google it - many reports and theses on this
Quote from: Baszab on February 20, 2019, 12:47:42 PM
It is a statistical fact that 70% of family businesses fail in second generation
Honestly ..... google it - many reports and theses on this
Not wanting to be argumentative so soon but that is not quite correct.
They do not necessarilly fail, that implies incompetence of the second generation.
What is true is that 70% do not remain as family businesses for a number of reasons.
One is no apparent succesion. Second, family squable, third business sold, fourth business not viable.
But they do not 'fail' per se.
what the study says is
Some 70 percent of family-owned businesses fail or are sold before the second generation gets a chance to take over, according to a 2012 Harvard Business School study. A big reason for the failure is business divorce, a colloquial term used to describe the separation between owners of a business, which can be just as painful as a regular divorce. This is especially true in case of a family business. and that is quite a different outlook IMO.
Quote from: Sting of the North on February 20, 2019, 09:44:06 AM
Quote from: ALG01 on February 19, 2019, 09:19:30 PM
Quote from: RaySmith on February 19, 2019, 08:53:44 PM
I fail to understand why AM and TK and everyone involved, wouldn't be doing their utmost to bring in urgently required players in the last window.
I believe AM when he says all efforts were made, but unsuccessful for reasons outside Fulham's control.
Why would he not make such efforts? It's very much in his own interests and TK's, and everyone employed by the club, for the club to stay up.
You don't know what happened, what problems there were in bringing players in.
Did people say that they were not trying? How do we know whether they tried hard enough or not? I do know our mnanagement certainly gave all the impression of not trying but that is just observation and which could never be entertained as fact.
What we do know is we failed because they (our management) are not capable of succeeding in transfer policy as has been proved by 11 extremely underwhelming transfer windows emtirely based on flawed thinking and inexperienced people taking the lead. With half a season to go and masses of points to play for, I feel certain that in the whole football playing world, there are two full backs and one decent center half available that arecurrently fit and could have been tempted here with a reasonable amount of money. The consequence of going down and staying down for several seasons swamps the outlay for these three players, as a minimum. AM comment the market is slow, smacks of couldn't care less and just papering over the failings of the transfer team.
We have all seen many years of football, good and bad with Fulham. We all knew the good guys and we also know the ones that are not capable, and that is what we have in our current head of transfers.
I think the bolded part is what we do "know" (under the assumption that we agree that the team needed, and tried to acquire, more reinforcements, which is something I believe most of us agree on including those responsible). What you write after that is not something we know however, but instead your speculation as to why we failed. However reasonable and well presented that speculation is, it does not equal fact. Many "failed" transfer windows would indeed indicate that our transfer team is not up to par. However, when you state things like "flawed thinking" it is unclear what you mean. In any case, couldn't it be flawed execution instead of flawed thinking? Or maybe both?
I also don't know why you need to speak for "all", since I believe it is better to leave other people to have their own opinions. I think that you will find that in most cases many on here is not in full agreement on who "the good" and "the bad" are. In the present case, I believe for example that our transfer team did try their best, and worked hard throughout the window. I am increasingly worried however that their best may never really cut it.
I can understand your comments and accept them but I am speaking with a degree of poetic licence. I say all in the same way I say we all Like Italian food. Well obviously in my experience nearly everybody does, but obviously some do not but I am not going to be writing such exactitudes or I will be qualifying every word.
In the end I stick entirely by what I said 11 failed transfer windows (more or less). Insofar as the senior management in the end have to take responsibility for apparently making the same errors time and again I think I know with crystal clarity who is to blame as do we all, or should I say most of us (the vast most of us).
I happen to believe, and I cannot prove it but just instinct, this time they put the minimum effort into it. For a management with such resources at their disposal, the assurances from the owner, and the arrival of Babel and two unfit lesser lights, no full backs, no leader that the manager desparately wanted, I think they have given up on the season and are probably thinking things over.
My impression is, if Wembley is no longer a realistic target and TK is seen to be not competent and so many supporters turning on him, they may well decide to cut their losses. Why spend money or change the very disapointing second manager of the season at vast cost. Now I cannot prove any of that, it is just my speculation and what I think may be going on but I would not be suprised if we are under new ownership sooner rather than later.
If they were serious about our long term future in the Prem, we would have made the necessary signings of that I have no doubt.
Quote from: ALG01 on February 20, 2019, 10:19:57 PM
I happen to believe, and I cannot prove it but just instinct, this time they put the minimum effort into it. For a management with such resources at their sisposal, the assurances from the owner, and the arrival of babel and two unfit lesser lights, no full backs, no leader that the manager desparately wanted, I think they have given up on the season and are probably thinking things over.
My impression is, if Wembley is no longer a realistic target and TK is seen to be not competent and so many supporters turning on him, they may well decide to cut their losses. Why spend money or change the very disapointing second manager of the season at vast cost. Now I cannot prove any of that, it is just my speculation and what I think may be going on but I would not be suprised if we are under new ownership sooner rather than later.
If they were serious about our long term future in the Prem, we would have made the necessary signings of that I have no doubt.
I share that belief, and yes it's instinct to some extent, but it's also evidenced (albeit nowhere near conclusively proven) by facts, most of which you touch on
Quote from: Statto on February 20, 2019, 10:27:24 PM
Quote from: ALG01 on February 20, 2019, 10:19:57 PM
I happen to believe, and I cannot prove it but just instinct, this time they put the minimum effort into it. For a management with such resources at their sisposal, the assurances from the owner, and the arrival of babel and two unfit lesser lights, no full backs, no leader that the manager desparately wanted, I think they have given up on the season and are probably thinking things over.
My impression is, if Wembley is no longer a realistic target and TK is seen to be not competent and so many supporters turning on him, they may well decide to cut their losses. Why spend money or change the very disapointing second manager of the season at vast cost. Now I cannot prove any of that, it is just my speculation and what I think may be going on but I would not be suprised if we are under new ownership sooner rather than later.
If they were serious about our long term future in the Prem, we would have made the necessary signings of that I have no doubt.
I share that belief, and yes it's instinct to some extent, but it's also evidenced (albeit nowhere near conclusively proven) by facts, most of which you touch on
If SK builds the "Riverside Stand" and he invests the FFP maximium of £35 million to rewrite-off recruitment mistakes, then they are committed to Craven Cottage and a long term future in the top half of the Championship most years, then that is better than we would do without "The Khans" (unless you assume we will find another billionaire or never make another transfer mistake or never have another bad season again).
Quote from: The Rational Fan on February 21, 2019, 03:34:44 AM
Quote from: Statto on February 20, 2019, 10:27:24 PM
Quote from: ALG01 on February 20, 2019, 10:19:57 PM
I happen to believe, and I cannot prove it but just instinct, this time they put the minimum effort into it. For a management with such resources at their sisposal, the assurances from the owner, and the arrival of babel and two unfit lesser lights, no full backs, no leader that the manager desparately wanted, I think they have given up on the season and are probably thinking things over.
My impression is, if Wembley is no longer a realistic target and TK is seen to be not competent and so many supporters turning on him, they may well decide to cut their losses. Why spend money or change the very disapointing second manager of the season at vast cost. Now I cannot prove any of that, it is just my speculation and what I think may be going on but I would not be suprised if we are under new ownership sooner rather than later.
If they were serious about our long term future in the Prem, we would have made the necessary signings of that I have no doubt.
I share that belief, and yes it's instinct to some extent, but it's also evidenced (albeit nowhere near conclusively proven) by facts, most of which you touch on
If SK builds the "Riverside Stand" and he invests the FFP maximium of £35 million to rewrite-off recruitment mistakes, then they are committed to Craven Cottage and a long term future in the top half of the Championship most years, then that is better than we would do without "The Khans" (unless you assume we will find another billionaire or never make another transfer mistake or never have another bad season again).
If is an interesting word here.
I have speculated that they will not invest substantially again and want to bow out. Building the Riverside Stand may yet happen even if they want to leave for a variety of legitimate business reasons and may even make the club a better prospect for a subsequent buyer. However, I doubt this venture will happen anytime soon.
What might follows them is a real cause for much concern but what I said was this is my instinct as to what will happen, I did not judge whether it would be a good thing or otherwise. My thinking is TK has been shown up for what he is and as a result takes such abuse from the fans that they have decided, 'what do we need it for?' If he just said I he will properly step aside, then I think we would all be happier.
