I see from the notes of the recent FST meeting that the club don't acknowledge their recruitment policy was flawed. Buying players in the closing minutes of the window is not their fault......just that every other club did it better.... are you really sure you didn't get it wrong?
Other club did it better?
Not a good mindset to blame it on over a dozen other teams.
The question I hope that they will be asking soon is "How can I do it better?" or "What can I improve on to get better players?"
This is standard corporate way of having accountability... I hope Shahid can pass on some of his business skills to the Fulham's management.
If shad does nothing to address it,which I think will happen as he has put money into the club but as in investment for his departure whenever that happens.
His leadership in my view has been poor.
We must have been the laughing stock of the Premier League, £100 million spent, three managers and runaway relegation contenders from an early date.
The best the recruitment team should expect is "must do better"
What a load of nonsense. They knew where the problem lye well before January and T Kant promised 'loads of signings' ...then the window opened but it might as well remained slammed shut. Rubbish. If that is not flawed the I would hate to see our club when it is.
092.gif
Since it appears from the previous posts that it is very obvious, can someone maybe help us not in the know and maybe break down what our recruitment policy is, and what parts of it are hugely flawed?
Because if it is based on unsatisfying results, then it could of course be either a policy problem and/or a problem with executing said policy in a satisfying manner. And even that is of course extremely simplified, since the results of recruitment is very much also dependent on other factors.
"............the relegation suffered didn't necessarily mean that there were lessons to be learned from the overall approach or that changes were now needed, albeit the season obviously did not go as they would have liked it to...........the aim for the coming season is promotion and nothing will change when it comes to the recruitment process. Transfer decisions will chiefly be in the hands of Tony Khan and Scott Parker. The system works as it has done previously: players will be signed on the basis that they fit the necessary data and scouting requirements. It is then up to the manager if he wants the player and finally, it is about if that deal can be negotiated and financed."
I don't normally swear but I am making an exception today.
Quote from: Southcoastffc on June 12, 2019, 10:45:30 AM
"............the relegation suffered didn't necessarily mean that there were lessons to be learned from the overall approach or that changes were now needed, albeit the season obviously did not go as they would have liked it to...........the aim for the coming season is promotion and nothing will change when it comes to the recruitment process. Transfer decisions will chiefly be in the hands of Tony Khan and Scott Parker. The system works as it has done previously: players will be signed on the basis that they fit the necessary data and scouting requirements. It is then up to the manager if he wants the player and finally, it is about if that deal can be negotiated and financed."
I don't normally swear but I am making an exception today.
:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: Surely Scott Parker does make comments based on common sense? :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:
"....players will be signed on the basis that they fit the necessary data and scouting requirements. It is then up to the manager if he wants the player...."
So Scott will be fishing in a small pool of data scrubbed fish. this is the wrong way round. The manager should identify his targets, the scouts should review them and make recommendations based on WATCHING them play. Data should then be considered but it should NOT be the deciding factor. Why? Because the stats cannot take into account the quality of the opposition. Bad stats might rule a player out of consideration, but good stats might not be repeated at a higher level, so should only be taken as confirmation of the manager and scouts' assessment.
I know that in KS' first season in charge - he and the scouting team presented a list of about 20 targets including proven Championship players - this list was binned by TK and KS was given new "targets"
I am sure SP now doesn't need to bother - as usual he will be given the list by TK - who knows less than my grandma on the correct players to bring in
Quote from: Southcoastffc on June 12, 2019, 10:45:30 AM
"............the relegation suffered didn't necessarily mean that there were lessons to be learned from the overall approach or that changes were now needed, albeit the season obviously did not go as they would have liked it to...........the aim for the coming season is promotion and nothing will change when it comes to the recruitment process. Transfer decisions will chiefly be in the hands of Tony Khan and Scott Parker. The system works as it has done previously: players will be signed on the basis that they fit the necessary data and scouting requirements. It is then up to the manager if he wants the player and finally, it is about if that deal can be negotiated and financed."
This in a nutshell is the problem.
Its been explained to me by a friend who knows someone in the know (believe that if you wish) that in recent times and under the present regime the data & scouting departments often offers players that are not on the wanted list of the HC.
It often over rides the HC's proposals on who he says he needs and rejects players he has named by putting forward other players that the stats and scouting say meets his criteria.
The so called managers final "tick" is ambiguous as it often only gives him names to choose (tick!) from a list that he has had little to do with.
The whole idea that the man who picks the team has the final say on signings is misleading due to the list generally only offering players presented by the stats & Scouting department.
TK offered explanations on FST questions about recruitment stating '[he] had had two good seasons in 2016/17, and 2017/18' as if to suggest that 2018/19 was 'a blip with mitigating circumstances (e.g. Mawson's injuries)'. The corollary of that would lead me to suggest that on that basis Jokanovic deserved commensurate similar latitude for his 'blip with mitigating circumstances (e.g. Mawon's injuries)' since TK also argued that Seri and Anguissa 'were for the future', whatever that was supposed to mean. His excuse for the winter window was players not wanting to leave their clubs or being refused permission to do so. Players 'not wanting to leave their club' can also be read as 'not wanting to join FFC', and refusals of clubs to engage can be read as 'pipe dreams' as far from reality as you can get.
It is inconsistency and failure to accept responsibility for fault that always compounds errors in any workplace, whatever the nature of that work place. That holds true whether or not nepotism is at work. It is time TK measured himself by the same yardstick he measures the worth of his coaches, and so on.
I agree with all the concerns raised here
But looking for a sliver lining many flawed processes can made to work with personal relationships
I don't think Klein and Joka spoke with each other . I have no idea how Joka was with Talbot .
And I would be surprised if he had good informal contact with Tony Khan . I think it was a more formal respect based relationship
Parker on the other hand is Mr relationship and is liked ( more than respected ) and he may well be able to work and manage the system better than Jokanovic ?
Or am I grabbing straws
Riversider I hope that's the case.
After last season it would be nice to think that a important lesson to be learnt in player recruitment is basic understanding of English.
Quote from: Riverside on June 12, 2019, 12:24:57 PM
But looking for a sliver lining many flawed processes can made to work with personal relationships
I suspect this is key to the whole puzzle as to why it hasn't worked because relationships have not been 'business like'. A part of that may be TK's special circumstances as being the owner's son. I personally believe it goes much deeper than that. It could simply involve the age old 'networks' that professional football has, to a very large extent, relied upon throughout its history and are not for exposure to 'ordinary' folk. It may be that TK is simply unable to hold meaningful relationships within that network and has decided, not unreasonably, to fight for his rights to be a part of it. You are right to suggest that SP could be better placed than his predecessors were, but looking for a silver lining may be a risky and long term gamble if TK maintains his inability to consider the obvious i.e. he cannot improve without accepting his own shortcomings when and if they are pointed out to him.
OMG.
I wonder if I can possibly cancel the ST I have just bought!
I don't see how Mawson's injury can be a 'mitigating circumstance' when they knew he wouldn't be ready for the start of the season. Ok, so he got another injury later but that doesn't change the fact that TK actually planned to start the season with Mawson injured.
Quote from: S.F.Sorrow on June 12, 2019, 03:09:10 PM
I don't see how Mawson's injury can be a 'mitigating circumstance' when they knew he wouldn't be ready for the start of the season. Ok, so he got another injury later but that doesn't change the fact that TK actually planned to start the season with Mawson injured.
We seem to sign a succession of players injured or not match fit enough to start a game. A massive flaw in the recruitment process IMO.
Quote from: Southcoastffc on June 12, 2019, 10:45:30 AM
"............the relegation suffered didn't necessarily mean that there were lessons to be learned from the overall approach or that changes were now needed, albeit the season obviously did not go as they would have liked it to...........the aim for the coming season is promotion and nothing will change when it comes to the recruitment process.
Is this a quote from the May FST meeting?
If so, that is a bloody outrage.
It is a continuation of TK's performance in the March meeting where blamed relegation on other people and things beyond his control.
Sorry but he is a disgusting specimen of mankind and deserves all the abuse he gets on Twitter, and more.
Classic spoilt rich kid with no idea how useless he is because his dad pays people not to tell him
Thats a quote from this weeks meeting
Same old same old....... I don't know why I waste my time reading the same thing.
Nothing will change with TK as DoF.
Some mone about Mike Ashley... I'd rather Ashley scrimping and saving with Rafa at the helm than this TK goon.
TK is more of a cowboy than an Indian
Agree with the level headed comments from all on here. Nothing more to be said about this arrogant individual, and the nicest word I can find to describe him and his ilk that is printable on this Forum, is absolutely " DELUDED ". 🆘
As a frequent "moaner" on here I should point out that, particularly given the ambition shown in the transfer market last summer and the commencement of work on the Riverside, I'm becoming increasingly comfortable that Shahid Khan is a good, well-intentioned chairman and custodian of this club.
My complaints these days purely concern his son, who has no grounds for working, in any capacity, in professional football, and who just isn't the type of person who'll ever fit the decent, humble, elegant nature of this club
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on June 12, 2019, 07:09:54 PM
Agree with the level headed comments from all on here. Nothing more to be said about this arrogant individual, and the nicest word I can find to describe him and his ilk that is printable on this Forum, is absolutely " DELUDED ". 🆘
Arrogant individual ?? Well I suppose it take one to know one :doh:
Quote from: Baszab on June 12, 2019, 11:39:31 AM
I know that in KS' first season in charge - he and the scouting team presented a list of about 20 targets including proven Championship players - this list was binned by TK and KS was given new "targets"
I am sure SP now doesn't need to bother - as usual he will be given the list by TK - who knows less than my grandma on the correct players to bring in
Don't believe this for a second. The season Kit was in charge we ONLY signed proven championship players and that's why we did so badly. - In hindsight probably more down to his ability as a coach than the players signed.
Every window since then TK has been in charge and the type of players we have signed has been different. I am not having one bit that the season Kit was in charge TK had anything to do with recruitment baring in mind all the signings were British and had played in the Championship.
Quote from: KJS on June 12, 2019, 08:35:21 PM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on June 12, 2019, 07:09:54 PM
Agree with the level headed comments from all on here. Nothing more to be said about this arrogant individual, and the nicest word I can find to describe him and his ilk that is printable on this Forum, is absolutely " DELUDED ". 🆘
Arrogant individual ?? Well I suppose it take one to know one :doh:
I shall take that as a compliment, and I have to say that I am truly sorry 075.gif your not feeling well, and it is not very nice for you to having suffered from foot and mouth disease, especially when only the foot has cleared up. :clap_hands:
Quote from: Baszab on June 12, 2019, 11:39:31 AM
I know that in KS' first season in charge - he and the scouting team presented a list of about 20 targets including proven Championship players - this list was binned by TK and KS was given new "targets"
I am sure SP now doesn't need to bother - as usual he will be given the list by TK - who knows less than my grandma on the correct players to bring in
You are probably right, but let´s hope for once you are wrong! Since the end of the season I have/am trying to try and live life on a positive basis, rarely posting on here and when I do, not the usual negative comments, they will probably start again when the new season starts which will probably be long before our recruitment program starts, having missed the boat again!
I hope we are both wrong!!
Bring back that stats guy Kline or Klein - you know, the Apple records guy.
Really appreciate the comments, Stato, Sabertooth, Dodge53, southcoast.
Clubs fall on hard times. We fall on dumb times.
When we hit the 3 bulls in the dart board, feel free to tell me/us how stupid we were.
Where is rational fan? He's on the "payroll". Why hasn't he posted?
People say Fulham recruitment last summer was moronic, but when you ask what Aston Villa should do in the summer they suggest buying at least 12 players.
Last season's summer window was desperately poor; we lacked a clear strategy so players (some decent and some poor) were bought/ loaned willy nilly, far too many were brought in too late so they had zero chance to assimilate, yet again we bought a player carrying an injury (do we never learn?), we failed to focus on the key positions and spread our intake across positions which were not a priority for strengthening and in so doing damaged the morale of the squad that got s promoted.
A complete disaster, is it any wonder I want to see TK removed as DoF?
Quote from: Twig on June 13, 2019, 05:27:26 AM
Last season's summer window was desperately poor; we lacked a clear strategy so players (some decent and some poor) were bought/ loaned willy nilly, far too many were brought in too late so they had zero chance to assimilate, yet again we bought a player carrying an injury (do we never learn?), we failed to focus on the key positions and spread our intake across positions which were not a priority for strengthening and in so doing damaged the morale of the squad that got s promoted.
A complete disaster, is it any wonder I want to see TK removed as DoF?
If Fulham FCs strategy is so bad, then why are Aston Villa probably going to follow almost the same strategy?
My guess, because Aston Villa (like Fulham FC) doesn't actually have other options. Its impossible for Aston Villa to buy much before the 1st July.
In the summer of 18/19, Fulham FC got 2xGK, 1xRB, 3xCB, 1xLB, 2xCM and 3xFW. What key positions didn't we get?
We have a DoF that the owner believes in (for biased reasons perhaps). If Tony Khan is replaced by a DoF that the owner doesn't believe in, then Fulham is exactly the same position that Sunderland was in 17/18 (with a DoF needing money and owner with money, but the owner not willing to invest more).
We got the key positions, problem is we didn't get
the right players to fill them key positions.
Quote from: Mince n Tatties on June 13, 2019, 06:48:09 AM
We got the key positions, problem is we didn't get
the right players to fill them key positions.
Which players that were at the club on the 1st Jan 2018 contributed the most this season (Betts, Odoi, Ream, KMac, Cairney or Sess)?
Frankly, the lack of contribution of players that have been at the club since Christmas of 2017 is a major problem.
Most recruitment has about a 40% success rate, FFC recruited 12 players and around 4-5 had a decent season (i.e. normal success rate).
The recruitment isn't the main problem, it is that Fulham has become over-reliant on new players to deliver each season (e.g. Mitro and Target in 17/18).
Quote from: Twig on June 13, 2019, 05:27:26 AM
Last season's summer window was desperately poor; we lacked a clear strategy so players (some decent and some poor) were bought/ loaned willy nilly, far too many were brought in too late so they had zero chance to assimilate, yet again we bought a player carrying an injury (do we never learn?), we failed to focus on the key positions and spread our intake across positions which were not a priority for strengthening and in so doing damaged the morale of the squad that got s promoted.
A complete disaster, is it any wonder I want to see TK removed as DoF?
Spot On Twig.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 13, 2019, 06:39:39 AM
If Fulham FCs strategy is so bad, then why are Aston Villa probably going to follow almost the same strategy?
Let's see it they do. Specifically, let's see how many of the following they do:
- Sign 2 x new GKs
- Buy or re-loan no more than 1 of their current loanees
- Sign 5 players on deadline day
- Make more signings in August than in June and July combined
- Spend a majority of their money on players who've never played in England
FYI, so far they've already signed Jota from Birmingham and made the loan of El Ghazi permanent.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 13, 2019, 06:39:39 AM
Quote from: Twig on June 13, 2019, 05:27:26 AM
Last season's summer window was desperately poor; we lacked a clear strategy so players (some decent and some poor) were bought/ loaned willy nilly, far too many were brought in too late so they had zero chance to assimilate, yet again we bought a player carrying an injury (do we never learn?), we failed to focus on the key positions and spread our intake across positions which were not a priority for strengthening and in so doing damaged the morale of the squad that got s promoted.
A complete disaster, is it any wonder I want to see TK removed as DoF?
If Fulham FCs strategy is so bad, then why are Aston Villa probably going to follow almost the same strategy?
My guess, because Aston Villa (like Fulham FC) doesn't actually have other options. Its impossible for Aston Villa to buy much before the 1st July.
In the summer of 18/19, Fulham FC got 2xGK, 1xRB, 3xCB, 1xLB, 2xCM and 3xFW. What key positions didn't we get?
We have a DoF that the owner believes in (for biased reasons perhaps). If Tony Khan is replaced by a DoF that the owner doesn't believe in, then Fulham is exactly the same position that Sunderland was in 17/18 (with a DoF needing money and owner with money, but the owner not willing to invest more).
You need to resign from Fulhams Board ASAP and with immediate effect, like yesterday. Before it's too late. In fact on reflection it is already too late.
Quote from: Statto on June 13, 2019, 07:53:29 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 13, 2019, 06:39:39 AM
If Fulham FCs strategy is so bad, then why are Aston Villa probably going to follow almost the same strategy?
Let's see it they do. Specifically, let's see how many of the following they do:
- Sign 2 x new GKs
- Buy or re-loan no more than 1 of their current loanees
- Sign 5 players on deadline day
- Make more signings in August than in June and July combined
- Spend a majority of their money on players who've never played in England
FYI, so far they've already signed Jota from Birmingham and made the loan of El Ghazi permanent.
True, I think point two "Buying only one of the 17/18 loanees" is too often under-emphasised and a major major mistake, because frankly if we signed most of the five best loanees (Kalas, Norwood, Targett, Piazon and Mitro); then "point three - numerous deadline signings", "point four - no early signings", "point five - most of the new players at the club have no english experience" and even "point one - too many goalkeepers" wouldn't have been major problems. The massive lack of contribution from the players of the 17/18 season, partly due to not hiring loanees is critical to FFC problems.
i personally didnt expect anything to change, may have hoped for some changes but didnt expect it.
What I worry about more is how many players will we need to buy, we have 8 payers leaving either end of loan or end of contract from the 25 (Rico, Chambers, Fosu-Mensah, Nordviet, Markovic, Babel, Schrulle and Vietto), 3 returning from loan (Stef Jo, Fonte, AK) so from the 25 listed on the offal that means we have a squad of 20. If we assume 2 are sold (Lets say Sess and Mitro but could be any 2) that takes us to 18. So we would need to get 7 players in. Again that is quite a lot. 3 or 4 could be youngsters if they are good enough so then its only 3 which isnt so bad, but that does depend on if they are good enough. Scotty P only players 1 or 2 so could mean 5 players needed.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 13, 2019, 06:39:39 AM
If Fulham FCs strategy is so bad, then why are Aston Villa probably going to follow almost the same strategy?
Do you mean Villa are going to A) appoint their owner's son as DoF; B) throw good money after bad on poor choices of players; C) recruit crocked players, or is there something even worse you think they are going to do?
Quote from: toshes mate on June 13, 2019, 09:06:37 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 13, 2019, 06:39:39 AM
If Fulham FCs strategy is so bad, then why are Aston Villa probably going to follow almost the same strategy?
Do you mean Villa are going to A) appoint their owner's son as DoF; B) throw good money after bad on poor choices of players; C) recruit crocked players, or is there something even worse you think they are going to do?
(c) is a very good point.
Hyperbole and dramatics aside, I genuinely think it worthwhile analysing in August how many of the following they've done and then seeing where they finish compared to us
- Sign 2 x new GKs
- Buy or re-loan no more than 1 of their current loanees
- Sign 5 players on deadline day
- Make more signings in August than in June and July combined
- Spend a majority of their money on players who've never played in England
- Sign a key player whilst injured and unable to play at the start of the season
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 13, 2019, 07:12:27 AM
Quote from: Mince n Tatties on June 13, 2019, 06:48:09 AM
We got the key positions, problem is we didn't get
the right players to fill them key positions.
Which players that were at the club on the 1st Jan 2018 contributed the most this season (Betts, Odoi, Ream, KMac, Cairney or Sess)?
Frankly, the lack of contribution of players that have been at the club since Christmas of 2017 is a major problem.
Most recruitment has about a 40% success rate, FFC recruited 12 players and around 4-5 had a decent season (i.e. normal success rate).
The recruitment isn't the main problem, it is that Fulham has become over-reliant on new players to deliver each season (e.g. Mitro and Target in 17/18).
If by 'decent season' and 'normal success rate' you mean good enough for relegation then you are correct of course...
Over the last couple of seasons we've spent far too much money on players that should be better than 'decent' considering what we paid for them: Sigurdsson, Jozabed, Fonte, Seri.
The reason we are 'over-reliant' on new players every season is that TK makes the same mistake over and over again: loans and short term solutions + most of the big money signings fail and must be sold at a loss or shipped out on loan. I think a lot of people underestimate the number of players we will need to sign to challenge for promotion next season. In my opinion we will need 7-10 players, depending on how many will leave and how many youngsters are ready to step up. Most of them will obviously arrive late so we will start the season uprepared with an unsettled squad AGAIN. This is a consequence of TKs failed/short term transfer business. How can you say this is not a recruitment problem?
Then there's the failed strategy of signing injured (or recently injured/unfit) players. Especially in the January window when we needed results FAST. What did TK get us?
Nordtveit (recently injured, not played since Nov)
Markovic (unfit, not played regularly for YEARS)
Babel (recently injured, not match fit when he arrived, eventually turned out great but by then it was too late)
To make matters even worse all of them arrived near the END of the transfer window.
Same story with the last summer transfer window.
Chambers signed Aug 7th. Bryan signed Aug 9th. Both started against Palace Aug 11th. That's insane! I think Chambers got a lot of undeserved critisism considering the circumstances. I'm sure he would have done better at CB if given more time to prepare.
And how can you be so certain that Shahid Khan won't financially back any other DoF than his son? This seems to be your main argument for supporting TK, that his father won't back any other DoF. A pretty weak argument IMO (but if it's true I would want both father and son out).
Quote from: S.F.Sorrow on June 13, 2019, 10:27:35 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 13, 2019, 07:12:27 AM
Quote from: Mince n Tatties on June 13, 2019, 06:48:09 AM
We got the key positions, problem is we didn't get
the right players to fill them key positions.
Which players that were at the club on the 1st Jan 2018 contributed the most this season (Betts, Odoi, Ream, KMac, Cairney or Sess)?
Frankly, the lack of contribution of players that have been at the club since Christmas of 2017 is a major problem.
Most recruitment has about a 40% success rate, FFC recruited 12 players and around 4-5 had a decent season (i.e. normal success rate).
The recruitment isn't the main problem, it is that Fulham has become over-reliant on new players to deliver each season (e.g. Mitro and Target in 17/18).
If by 'decent season' and 'normal success rate' you mean good enough for relegation then you are correct of course...
Over the last couple of seasons we've spent far too much money on players that should be better than 'decent' considering what we paid for them: Sigurdsson, Jozabed, Fonte, Seri.
The reason we are 'over-reliant' on new players every season is that TK makes the same mistake over and over again: loans and short term solutions + most of the big money signings fail and must be sold at a loss or shipped out on loan. I think a lot of people underestimate the number of players we will need to sign to challenge for promotion next season. In my opinion we will need 7-10 players, depending on how many will leave and how many youngsters are ready to step up. Most of them will obviously arrive late so we will start the season uprepared with an unsettled squad AGAIN. This is a consequence of TKs failed/short term transfer business. How can you say this is not a recruitment problem?
Then there's the failed strategy of signing injured (or recently injured/unfit) players. Especially in the January window when we needed results FAST. What did TK get us?
Nordtveit (recently injured, not played since Nov)
Markovic (unfit, not played regularly for YEARS)
Babel (recently injured, not match fit when he arrived, eventually turned out great but by then it was too late)
To make matters even worse all of them arrived near the END of the transfer window.
Same story with the last summer transfer window.
Chambers signed Aug 7th. Bryan signed Aug 9th. Both started against Palace Aug 11th. That's insane! I think Chambers got a lot of undeserved critisism considering the circumstances. I'm sure he would have done better at CB if given more time to prepare.
And how can you be so certain that Shahid Khan won't financially back any other DoF than his son? This seems to be your main argument for supporting TK, that his father won't back any other DoF. A pretty weak argument IMO (but if it's true I would want both father and son out).
Touché
The voice of reason.
Quote from: S.F.Sorrow on June 13, 2019, 10:27:35 AM
If by 'decent season' and 'normal success rate' you mean good enough for relegation then you are correct of course ...
The whole post (which I have snipped to save space) is one of the most erudite descriptions of TK's recruitment team failures and failings. I do hope it is brought to the attention of Khan Senior.
Thank you for that SFS.
Quote from: Mince n Tatties on June 13, 2019, 06:48:09 AM
We got the key positions, problem is we didn't get
the right players to fill them key positions.
Too right!
Quote from: Baszab on June 12, 2019, 11:39:31 AM
I know that in KS' first season in charge - he and the scouting team presented a list of about 20 targets including proven Championship players - this list was binned by TK and KS was given new "targets"
I am sure SP now doesn't need to bother - as usual he will be given the list by TK - who knows less than my grandma on the correct players to bring in
TK is chocking the life out of the team and strangling the pleasure out of being a supporter. He is an arrogant spoiled incompetent.
This is a quote from Mackintosh as reported in the FST minutes of their May meeting:- 'The system works as it has done previously: players will be signed on the basis that they fit the necessary data and scouting requirements. It is then up to the manager if he wants the player and finally, it is about if that deal can be negotiated and financed.'
First read it and see if you can fathom the cack-handed order of AM's response (hint: players will be signed ... it is then up to the manager if he wants). If the minutes are accurate then no wonder no one truly knows what the hell actually does happen.
It appears to suggest that failure to satisfy 'the necessary data and scouting requirements' trump the manager's [sic - we don't have one; SP is head coach] say so before we even begin to consider the practical task of encouraging the player to join us.
To me these 'limitations' do intimate just why so much of what recruitment do seems to be shambolic and often driven by panic. There must be a better way.
If the coach has the final say but no input then dont danction any move because ultitmatly it will be the coach that gets the chop. I'm sure I read somwhere that the coach can make suggestions to the stats team?
I just do not understand why the coaching team, the recruitment team, and the negotiating team cannot sit down at a meeting (or meetings) prior to and/or during the transfer window and come to agreement about targets who reflect attainable, practical and beneficial recruits to the first team squad. Each attendee can arm themselves with appropriate data and thrash out answers in the same way that any business does. For sure some will be overruled but at least the whole will enable their views to be considered and the reasons for rejection made clear.
But surely there is some sort of selection process or discussion even before data and scouting? There is nothing to say that for example our head coach is not allowed to suggest players, even at an early stage. How much they listen to him is of course up in the air, but nothing in the described process excludes the head coach from being fairly heavily involved, in principle. I believe it has mostly to do with how well the key people (TK, Ali Mac, SP, Talbot) communicate with each other, and the change from SJ to SP may have switched that balance a little (for better or worse). In the next stage, it is most likely more down to the ability to execute than to the process as such. This is something that we are probably at an disadvantage at, due to TK's lack of experience (or maybe rather lack of a wide enough contact net). Hopefully he is learning on the job (regardless of how bizarre that may seem for such a position).
Also, it seems convenient to keep just quoting the "nothing will change" part of the FST notes. It also stated "Transfer decisions will chiefly be in the hands of Tony Khan and Scott Parker", and "The priority was getting the players in that Scott Parker and Tony Khan felt were needed". If we are believing the former quote, then maybe we should also put at least a little faith in the latter quotes? After all, this is from the same notes of the same person speaking at the same meeting.
Lastly, as someone pointed out, who did really believe that Ali Mac would have something bad to say about TK and his process at a meeting like this? Even if they are learning from mistakes, it is not very likely that they will publicly admit to failure as long as they are not intending to change the overall approach. Maybe they should, but most wouldn't. This may be unfortunate, and I would probably have preferred a more humble approach, but surely no one should be the least surprised.
All in all, I think the proof of lessons learned or not would be in the pudding. If we start out with a good squad that have had at least some chance to get to know each other before the season starts, then they were either lucky or they learned from past mistakes. We will probably not know the difference anyway.
The fact is that every teams getting promoted to the Premier League are at a massive financial and experience disadvantage to the teams already there, this is primary reason we are getting relegated. The other fact is that teams getting relegated are at a massive advantage to the teams they will face in the Championship.
The reason teams getting relegated often do poorly are i) expensive players are that are on the book are often injured, over the hill or were overpaid for, ii) relegation often develops into a blame culture that becomes toxic on the football field (highly likely) and iii) the blame culture develops into a belief of a complete rebuild, selling expensive players for little money, which is actually kind of pointless.
Next Season, we can either i) play Mawson, Anguissa, Seri and Mitrovoic who one year ago would have been the rated as some of the best players be signed by a Championship Club ever, or ii) sell them all off for half what they were woth last year, book massive balance sheet losses and see what we can buy.
Considering we beat everyone of the bottom six teams last year, I think we have the players to romp this league, whether we can keep in together mentally is another question, relegation can destroy players and teams in a toxic blame culture. It seems after a team is relegated no amount of money or players helps they just keep losing to teams that on paper they shouldn't.
No matter how well Aston Villa, Norwich and Sheffield United recruit they will go down, unless Brighton, Burnley or others make mistakes (last season was unusual as no team apart from Man Utd and Southampton massively underperformed relative to money). It's the year after relegation that no team has any excuses involving money not to get promoted again. Unfortunately, the teams winning the Championship aren't normally the ones that spent their money well, but created a little bit of magic beyond the money (e.g. Sheffield United and Leeds).
Quote from: Sting of the North on June 14, 2019, 08:58:12 AM
But surely there is some sort of selection process or discussion even before data and scouting? There is nothing to say that for example our head coach is not allowed to suggest players, even at an early stage. How much they listen to him is of course up in the air, but nothing in the described process excludes the head coach from being fairly heavily involved, in principle. I believe it has mostly to do with how well the key people (TK, Ali Mac, SP, Talbot) communicate with each other, and the change from SJ to SP may have switched that balance a little (for better or worse). In the next stage, it is most likely more down to the ability to execute than to the process as such. This is something that we are probably at an disadvantage at, due to TK's lack of experience (or maybe rather lack of a wide enough contact net). Hopefully he is learning on the job (regardless of how bizarre that may seem for such a position).
Also, it seems convenient to keep just quoting the "nothing will change" part of the FST notes. It also stated "Transfer decisions will chiefly be in the hands of Tony Khan and Scott Parker", and "The priority was getting the players in that Scott Parker and Tony Khan felt were needed". If we are believing the former quote, then maybe we should also put at least a little faith in the latter quotes? After all, this is from the same notes of the same person speaking at the same meeting.
Lastly, as someone pointed out, who did really believe that Ali Mac would have something bad to say about TK and his process at a meeting like this? Even if they are learning from mistakes, it is not very likely that they will publicly admit to failure as long as they are not intending to change the overall approach. Maybe they should, but most wouldn't. This may be unfortunate, and I would probably have preferred a more humble approach, but surely no one should be the least surprised.
All in all, I think the proof of lessons learned or not would be in the pudding. If we start out with a good squad that have had at least some chance to get to know each other before the season starts, then they were either lucky or they learned from past mistakes. We will probably not know the difference anyway.
Cannot argue with any of this because it is a sensible reflection of what we know, or pretend to know, from the evidence of FST notes since they have appeared. All words have a certain ambiguity unless they are spoken and you can hear the tones and keys and clues as to what the precise meanings are. There is a rule in probability mathematics called regression to the mean and it concludes that random events and their anomalous outcomes (e.g. promotion and relegation) occur like coin tosses. Sometimes 'heads' keeps coming up but each toss outcome is random and eventually the mean will occur. A better way of understanding regression is that if tall parents were assured tall offspring, and short parents assured short offspring then we would have a mixture of giants and dwarfs. The actual mean shows a slight, almost imperceptible, but steady growth in the height of human beings over time.
it does not matter what they say... since the Khan's have been with us recuritment has been shocking. not for the lack of money but for the lack of quality and value for that money.
and TK is the link with his third rate outlook. he is arrogant and only in situ because of his familly connection. if his dad was serious he would remove him rather than indulge him. they took all the fun out of last season. i cannot see us doing well this time unless there is a massive change in approach and the arrogant one seems to be in mega denial.
Quote from: ALG01 on June 14, 2019, 09:54:34 AM
it does not matter what they say... since the Khan's have been with us recuritment has been shocking. not for the lack of money but for the lack of quality and value for that money.
and TK is the link with his third rate outlook. he is arrogant and only in situ because of his familly connection. if his dad was serious he would remove him rather than indulge him. they took all the fun out of last season. i cannot see us doing well this time unless there is a massive change in approach and the arrogant one seems to be in mega denial.
So then the real problem is Shahid Khan, because he would be the one best positioned to do something about this.
Looking at the players signed last summer it looks like a great recruitment strategy.
Improve the keeper and provide competition, bring in a quick young left back, bring in a centre back partnership who have played together before (mawson/ Chambers) bring in flair and big time experience in midfield (Seri/ anguissa) ensure Mitro stays and is backed up in attack by a World Cup winner
Yea this is all superb but when you leave it til the last week of the window to sign most of the players, more or less ALL OF YOUR PRE SEASON HAS BEEN POINTLESS. Look behind the transfers, look at the effect it has on the other players, what on earth was Slav doing with Djalo and Cisse against the likes of Lyon.
It's only a good transfer strategy if it helps and supports the development of the team, not making Slav completely rip up his strategy on the last week and re prepare weeks behind everyone else.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 14, 2019, 09:15:37 AM
The fact is that every teams getting promoted to the Premier League are at a massive financial and experience disadvantage to the teams already there, this is primary reason we are getting relegated. The other fact is that teams getting relegated are at a massive advantage to the teams they will face in the Championship.
The reason teams getting relegated often do poorly are i) expensive players are that are on the book are often injured, over the hill or were overpaid for, ii) relegation often develops into a blame culture that becomes toxic on the football field (highly likely) and iii) the blame culture develops into a belief of a complete rebuild, selling expensive players for little money, which is actually kind of pointless.
Next Season, we can either i) play Mawson, Anguissa, Seri and Mitrovoic who one year ago would have been the rated as some of the best players be signed by a Championship Club ever, or ii) sell them all off for half what they were woth last year, book massive balance sheet losses and see what we can buy.
Considering we beat everyone of the bottom six teams last year, I think we have the players to romp this league, whether we can keep in together mentally is another question, relegation can destroy players and teams in a toxic blame culture. It seems after a team is relegated no amount of money or players helps they just keep losing to teams that on paper they shouldn't.
No matter how well Aston Villa, Norwich and Sheffield United recruit they will go down, unless Brighton, Burnley or others make mistakes (last season was unusual as no team apart from Man Utd and Southampton massively underperformed relative to money). It's the year after relegation that no team has any excuses involving money not to get promoted again. Unfortunately, the teams winning the Championship aren't normally the ones that spent their money well, but created a little bit of magic beyond the money (e.g. Sheffield United and Leeds).
I have seen rumours of Seri and Anguissa going on loan next season. I assume that won't affect balance sheet losses? As for Mitrovic, he'll probably be sold at a profit.
Letting Target go was a huge mistake, not only his personal performance but the successful relationship with Sess down the left. Signing Mawson and Chambers was a good idea for defensive pairing but sadly, it all went pear shaped very fast. Seems like a combination of errors to me. Recruitment and coaching but mainly recruitment.
Quote from: jarv on June 14, 2019, 01:22:49 PM
Letting Target go was a huge mistake, not only his personal performance but the successful relationship with Sess down the left. Signing Mawson and Chambers was a good idea for defensive pairing but sadly, it all went pear shaped very fast. Seems like a combination of errors to me. Recruitment and coaching but mainly recruitment.
Targett wasnt ours to let go?? He was on loan and then southampton didnt want to sell him.
Quote from: Sting of the North on June 14, 2019, 08:58:12 AM
You say......
"There is nothing to say that for example our head coach is not allowed to suggest players"The problem is any players the HC suggests are binned, he can suggest them but its more likely TK and others will come up with an alternative and we end up with a player the HC doesn't want more often than not.
"Transfer decisions will chiefly be in the hands of Tony Khan and Scott Parker" WTF is TK doing having a chief say in recruitment ? Oh yes, his Dad owns the club and that's really important!
"Hopefully he is learning on the job"Well! Clearly he's not according to whats been said!
Quote from: Ols_S on June 14, 2019, 03:23:39 PM
Quote from: jarv on June 14, 2019, 01:22:49 PM
Letting Target go was a huge mistake, not only his personal performance but the successful relationship with Sess down the left. Signing Mawson and Chambers was a good idea for defensive pairing but sadly, it all went pear shaped very fast. Seems like a combination of errors to me. Recruitment and coaching but mainly recruitment.
Targett wasnt ours to let go?? He was on loan and then southampton didnt want to sell him.
Neither was Mitrovic, but that isn't the point being made is it (rhetorical).
Quote from: Ols_S on June 14, 2019, 03:23:39 PM
Quote from: jarv on June 14, 2019, 01:22:49 PM
Letting Target go was a huge mistake, not only his personal performance but the successful relationship with Sess down the left. Signing Mawson and Chambers was a good idea for defensive pairing but sadly, it all went pear shaped very fast. Seems like a combination of errors to me. Recruitment and coaching but mainly recruitment.
Targett wasnt ours to let go?? He was on loan and then southampton didnt want to sell him.
Actually, they were keen on selling for a set price which we didn't meet. Supposedly, not someone ITK on the Saints end, we were quibbling over 1-2m.
Quote from: toshes mate on June 14, 2019, 04:00:30 PM
Quote from: Ols_S on June 14, 2019, 03:23:39 PM
Quote from: jarv on June 14, 2019, 01:22:49 PM
Letting Target go was a huge mistake, not only his personal performance but the successful relationship with Sess down the left. Signing Mawson and Chambers was a good idea for defensive pairing but sadly, it all went pear shaped very fast. Seems like a combination of errors to me. Recruitment and coaching but mainly recruitment.
Targett wasnt ours to let go?? He was on loan and then southampton didnt want to sell him.
Neither was Mitrovic, but that isn't the point being made is it (rhetorical).
I see your point, but I think Newcastle were more prepared for him to leave than Southampton were with Matty T!
Quote from: FFC1987 on June 14, 2019, 04:15:47 PM
Quote from: Ols_S on June 14, 2019, 03:23:39 PM
Quote from: jarv on June 14, 2019, 01:22:49 PM
Letting Target go was a huge mistake, not only his personal performance but the successful relationship with Sess down the left. Signing Mawson and Chambers was a good idea for defensive pairing but sadly, it all went pear shaped very fast. Seems like a combination of errors to me. Recruitment and coaching but mainly recruitment.
Targett wasnt ours to let go?? He was on loan and then southampton didnt want to sell him.
Actually, they were keen on selling for a set price which we didn't meet. Supposedly, not someone ITK on the Saints end, we were quibbling over 1-2m.
Which when you look at what was spent elsewhere in the squad is ridiculous, if true!
Quote from: S.F.Sorrow on June 13, 2019, 10:27:35 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 13, 2019, 07:12:27 AM
Quote from: Mince n Tatties on June 13, 2019, 06:48:09 AM
We got the key positions, problem is we didn't get
the right players to fill them key positions.
Which players that were at the club on the 1st Jan 2018 contributed the most this season (Betts, Odoi, Ream, KMac, Cairney or Sess)?
Frankly, the lack of contribution of players that have been at the club since Christmas of 2017 is a major problem.
Most recruitment has about a 40% success rate, FFC recruited 12 players and around 4-5 had a decent season (i.e. normal success rate).
The recruitment isn't the main problem, it is that Fulham has become over-reliant on new players to deliver each season (e.g. Mitro and Target in 17/18).
If by 'decent season' and 'normal success rate' you mean good enough for relegation then you are correct of course...
Over the last couple of seasons we've spent far too much money on players that should be better than 'decent' considering what we paid for them: Sigurdsson, Jozabed, Fonte, Seri.
The reason we are 'over-reliant' on new players every season is that TK makes the same mistake over and over again: loans and short term solutions + most of the big money signings fail and must be sold at a loss or shipped out on loan. I think a lot of people underestimate the number of players we will need to sign to challenge for promotion next season. In my opinion we will need 7-10 players, depending on how many will leave and how many youngsters are ready to step up. Most of them will obviously arrive late so we will start the season uprepared with an unsettled squad AGAIN. This is a consequence of TKs failed/short term transfer business. How can you say this is not a recruitment problem?
Then there's the failed strategy of signing injured (or recently injured/unfit) players. Especially in the January window when we needed results FAST. What did TK get us?
Nordtveit (recently injured, not played since Nov)
Markovic (unfit, not played regularly for YEARS)
Babel (recently injured, not match fit when he arrived, eventually turned out great but by then it was too late)
To make matters even worse all of them arrived near the END of the transfer window.
Same story with the last summer transfer window.
Chambers signed Aug 7th. Bryan signed Aug 9th. Both started against Palace Aug 11th. That's insane! I think Chambers got a lot of undeserved critisism considering the circumstances. I'm sure he would have done better at CB if given more time to prepare.
And how can you be so certain that Shahid Khan won't financially back any other DoF than his son? This seems to be your main argument for supporting TK, that his father won't back any other DoF. A pretty weak argument IMO (but if it's true I would want both father and son out).
Totally support this post in its entirety.
Quote from: Twig on June 14, 2019, 11:29:19 PM
Quote from: S.F.Sorrow on June 13, 2019, 10:27:35 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 13, 2019, 07:12:27 AM
Quote from: Mince n Tatties on June 13, 2019, 06:48:09 AM
We got the key positions, problem is we didn't get
the right players to fill them key positions.
Which players that were at the club on the 1st Jan 2018 contributed the most this season (Betts, Odoi, Ream, KMac, Cairney or Sess)?
Frankly, the lack of contribution of players that have been at the club since Christmas of 2017 is a major problem.
Most recruitment has about a 40% success rate, FFC recruited 12 players and around 4-5 had a decent season (i.e. normal success rate).
The recruitment isn't the main problem, it is that Fulham has become over-reliant on new players to deliver each season (e.g. Mitro and Target in 17/18).
If by 'decent season' and 'normal success rate' you mean good enough for relegation then you are correct of course...
Over the last couple of seasons we've spent far too much money on players that should be better than 'decent' considering what we paid for them: Sigurdsson, Jozabed, Fonte, Seri.
The reason we are 'over-reliant' on new players every season is that TK makes the same mistake over and over again: loans and short term solutions + most of the big money signings fail and must be sold at a loss or shipped out on loan. I think a lot of people underestimate the number of players we will need to sign to challenge for promotion next season. In my opinion we will need 7-10 players, depending on how many will leave and how many youngsters are ready to step up. Most of them will obviously arrive late so we will start the season uprepared with an unsettled squad AGAIN. This is a consequence of TKs failed/short term transfer business. How can you say this is not a recruitment problem?
Then there's the failed strategy of signing injured (or recently injured/unfit) players. Especially in the January window when we needed results FAST. What did TK get us?
Nordtveit (recently injured, not played since Nov)
Markovic (unfit, not played regularly for YEARS)
Babel (recently injured, not match fit when he arrived, eventually turned out great but by then it was too late)
To make matters even worse all of them arrived near the END of the transfer window.
Same story with the last summer transfer window.
Chambers signed Aug 7th. Bryan signed Aug 9th. Both started against Palace Aug 11th. That's insane! I think Chambers got a lot of undeserved critisism considering the circumstances. I'm sure he would have done better at CB if given more time to prepare.
And how can you be so certain that Shahid Khan won't financially back any other DoF than his son? This seems to be your main argument for supporting TK, that his father won't back any other DoF. A pretty weak argument IMO (but if it's true I would want both father and son out).
Totally support this post in its entirety.
As do I
Quote from: bill taylors apprentice on June 14, 2019, 03:51:36 PM
[Sting Of The North] say......
"There is nothing to say that for example our head coach is not allowed to suggest players"
The problem is any players the HC suggests are binned, he can suggest them but its more likely TK and others will come up with an alternative and we end up with a player the HC doesn't want more often than not.
"Transfer decisions will chiefly be in the hands of Tony Khan and Scott Parker"
WTF is TK doing having a chief say in recruitment ? Oh yes, his Dad owns the club and that's really important!
"Hopefully he is learning on the job"
Well! Clearly he's not according to whats been said!
Once again it is difficult not to see the two very different sides to a system that is supposed to be
clear to everyone and not as ambiguous as any politician would be thrilled to make it. The Khans' are running a football club and not vying for a majority. If TK was fit for purpose there wouldn't even be room for one doubting supporter.
Quote from: S.F.Sorrow on June 13, 2019, 10:27:35 AM
If by 'decent season' and 'normal success rate' you mean good enough for relegation then you are correct of course...
Over the last couple of seasons we've spent far too much money on players that should be better than 'decent' considering what we paid for them: Sigurdsson, Jozabed, Fonte, Seri.
The reason we are 'over-reliant' on new players every season is that TK makes the same mistake over and over again: loans and short term solutions + most of the big money signings fail and must be sold at a loss or shipped out on loan. I think a lot of people underestimate the number of players we will need to sign to challenge for promotion next season. In my opinion we will need 7-10 players, depending on how many will leave and how many youngsters are ready to step up. Most of them will obviously arrive late so we will start the season uprepared with an unsettled squad AGAIN. This is a consequence of TKs failed/short term transfer business. How can you say this is not a recruitment problem?
Then there's the failed strategy of signing injured (or recently injured/unfit) players. Especially in the January window when we needed results FAST. What did TK get us?
Nordtveit (recently injured, not played since Nov)
Markovic (unfit, not played regularly for YEARS)
Babel (recently injured, not match fit when he arrived, eventually turned out great but by then it was too late)
To make matters even worse all of them arrived near the END of the transfer window.
Same story with the last summer transfer window.
Chambers signed Aug 7th. Bryan signed Aug 9th. Both started against Palace Aug 11th. That's insane! I think Chambers got a lot of undeserved critisism considering the circumstances. I'm sure he would have done better at CB if given more time to prepare.
And how can you be so certain that Shahid Khan won't financially back any other DoF than his son? This seems to be your main argument for supporting TK, that his father won't back any other DoF. A pretty weak argument IMO (but if it's true I would want both father and son out).
This post 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
This is Arson, somebody call the Fire Brigade. 💦💧
Quote from: S.F.Sorrow on June 13, 2019, 10:27:35 AM
If by 'decent season' and 'normal success rate' you mean good enough for relegation then you are correct of course...
Yes, I do. A "normal success rate" would mean the three teams that have spend the least will go down.
As you can see that happened last season, of course we all hoped for exceptional performance (like Wolves).
Transfer Spending on Players (since season promoted from Championship)14 Newcastle United £151.03m
15 Brighton & Hove Albion £145.45m
16 Burnley £126.04m
17 Wolves £123.18m
18 Fulham £122.46m
19 Huddersfield Town £100.72m
20 Cardiff City £57.48m
Quote from: S.F.Sorrow on June 13, 2019, 10:27:35 AM
Over the last couple of seasons we've spent far too much money on players that should be better than 'decent' considering what we paid for them: Sigurdsson, Jozabed, Fonte, Seri.
Yes, but we have also made good and bad signings. As I said, we got relegated due to a normal success rate.
A "normal success rate" means the team selling normally get the player value more correct than the buying club.
Quote from: S.F.Sorrow on June 13, 2019, 10:27:35 AM
I think a lot of people underestimate the number of players we will need to sign to challenge for promotion next season. In my opinion we will need 7-10 players, depending on how many will leave and how many youngsters are ready to step up. Most of them will obviously arrive late so we will start the season uprepared with an unsettled squad AGAIN. This is a consequence of TKs failed/short term transfer business. How can you say this is not a recruitment problem?
What you are saying is we need "10 players available right now that are good enough to deliver promotion at prices Fulham can afford". All we know for certain is Tony Khan sees what is available in his price range for late June and early July says "no thank you" every year, except last season when he bought MLM and Seri a little earlier (which proves he gets better value nearer deadline day).
Quote from: S.F.Sorrow on June 13, 2019, 10:27:35 AM
Then there's the failed strategy of signing injured (or recently injured/unfit) players. Especially in the January window when we needed results FAST. What did TK get us?
Yes, Tony Khan has been signing injured players, because he couldn't buy uninjured players of their quality. Fulham signed a i) injured Mawson (with an uninjured MLM), ii) unfit Babel (with a fit Vietto). Does anyone seriously think FFC had the option to sign an uninjured Mawson and a fit Babel?
Quote from: S.F.Sorrow on June 13, 2019, 10:27:35 AM
Chambers signed Aug 7th. Bryan signed Aug 9th. Both started against Palace Aug 11th. That's insane! I think Chambers got a lot of undeserved critisism considering the circumstances. I'm sure he would have done better at CB if given more time to prepare.
I totally agree that Chambers and Bryan were bought late, but Christie and MLM were the best options FFC could find early for the 18/19 season. If you saying "getting a player of Chambers quality when we bought MLM" and "getting a player of Bryan's quality when we got Christie" would have helped there is no doubt your right. Do actually believe we could have loaned Chambers in early June?
Quote from: S.F.Sorrow on June 13, 2019, 10:27:35 AM
And how can you be so certain that Shahid Khan won't financially back any other DoF than his son? This seems to be your main argument for supporting TK.
I cannot be certain Shahid Khan won't financially back another DoF. If he 100% backs another DoF as much as this one we are fine, but the owner backing his DoF is the first, second and third most important things at the club. The financial backing table indicates that Tony Khan wasn't backed as much as at least 16 other teams in the Premier League, so relegation was partly caused by TK not being backed enough. Most fans believes Shahid Khan would have liked to have backed his DoF more, but FFP simply won't let him do it. Financial backing is essential essential essential.
Quote from: S.F.Sorrow on June 13, 2019, 10:27:35 AM
You say if Shahid Khan won't back a new DoF, I would want both father and son out.
If father and son leave, then whom will buy it and why would they buy the club (for its assets or to be a team).
According to the Fulham Accounts 17/18, the Fulham's freehold land is worth £130 million without rezoning (rezoning the cottage could double that value).
If someone wants to buy a mid-table Championship Club, then the typically price £40-70 million, like Wolves sold for 50 million.
We know that asset strippers (i.e. with property developers) would probably offer to buy Fulham for more than the accounting price of the land £130 million, but would a billionaire wanting to own a football Club be willing to pay £80 million more for Fulham over say Sheffield Wednesday (or pay £30 million more for Fulham than Sunderland).
If the Khan's sell to asset strippers, then it could be very very dark days indeed. Don't wish for it.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 16, 2019, 05:47:38 AM
If the Khan's sell to asset strippers, then it could be very very dark days indeed. Don't wish for it.
When I was researching the planning documents for the ex-BBC land acquired by Khan, my searches revealed
something that, at the time, wasn't helpful to understanding what was going on with Khan's recently acquired asset and so I disregarded it. That
something was potential alternative 'sites' for 'facilities' (unspecified) FFC had been allegedly looking at. These 'sites' were not helpfully specific (i.e. there was no clear identification as to location which was probably deliberate) and whilst I tried to identify them on maps there was just too much ambiguity to believe there was any or much connection to Motspur Park, although I could see a potential for a 'new development for both stadium and training (or other use)'. My immediate thoughts at the time turned to this being a search for NFL facilities, rather than football.
However, a part of me could see Khan, looking at the longer term, and knowing how planning and development proposals change with land value changes, thinking about a new multi-purpose stadium and giving up on Craven Cottage. The latter point is strengthened when one considers the new Riverside which when finished will already contain residential units and would make planning change of use a snip. As we can assume Khan is shrewd operator then why on earth would he pass up an opportunity to at least break even on his London dealings if his only interest in FFC is pleasing his son by giving him a business to run? If he is not here for the duration then we are already in trouble.
Quote from: toshes mate on June 16, 2019, 09:30:42 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 16, 2019, 05:47:38 AM
If the Khan's sell to asset strippers, then it could be very very dark days indeed. Don't wish for it.
When I was researching the planning documents for the ex-BBC land acquired by Khan, my searches revealed something that, at the time, wasn't helpful to understanding what was going on with Khan's recently acquired asset and so I disregarded it. That something was potential alternative 'sites' for 'facilities' (unspecified) FFC had been allegedly looking at. These 'sites' were not helpfully specific (i.e. there was no clear identification as to location which was probably deliberate) and whilst I tried to identify them on maps there was just too much ambiguity to believe there was any or much connection to Motspur Park, although I could see a potential for a 'new development for both stadium and training (or other use)'. My immediate thoughts at the time turned to this being a search for NFL facilities, rather than football.
However, a part of me could see Khan, looking at the longer term, and knowing how planning and development proposals change with land value changes, thinking about a new multi-purpose stadium and giving up on Craven Cottage. The latter point is strengthened when one considers the new Riverside which when finished will already contain residential units and would make planning change of use a snip. As we can assume Khan is shrewd operator then why on earth would he pass up an opportunity to at least break even on his London dealings if his only interest in FFC is pleasing his son by giving him a business to run? If he is not here for the duration then we are already in trouble.
Spot on i noticed almost the same thing; it seems they have bought into Fulham at £200m in a way that they can at least break even with the London dealings even if the football fails. The Khan's actions indicate to me that they may "Love the Club", but everyone still has a little doubt and there is no truer statement than "If he is not here for the duration then we are already in trouble". Or at least, unless the Khans are very careful to ensure "the owners love the club more than they love money" then we are in BIG BIG Trouble.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 16, 2019, 05:47:38 AM
Quote from: S.F.Sorrow on June 13, 2019, 10:27:35 AM
If by 'decent season' and 'normal success rate' you mean good enough for relegation then you are correct of course...
Yes, I do. A "normal success rate" would mean the three teams that have spend the least will go down.
As you can see that happened last season, of course we all hoped for exceptional performance (like Wolves).
Transfer Spending on Players (since season promoted from Championship)
14 Newcastle United £151.03m
15 Brighton & Hove Albion £145.45m
16 Burnley £126.04m
17 Wolves £123.18m
18 Fulham £122.46m
19 Huddersfield Town £100.72m
20 Cardiff City £57.48m
Quote from: S.F.Sorrow on June 13, 2019, 10:27:35 AM
Over the last couple of seasons we've spent far too much money on players that should be better than 'decent' considering what we paid for them: Sigurdsson, Jozabed, Fonte, Seri.
Yes, but we have also made good and bad signings. As I said, we got relegated due to a normal success rate.
A "normal success rate" means the team selling normally get the player value more correct than the buying club.
Quote from: S.F.Sorrow on June 13, 2019, 10:27:35 AM
I think a lot of people underestimate the number of players we will need to sign to challenge for promotion next season. In my opinion we will need 7-10 players, depending on how many will leave and how many youngsters are ready to step up. Most of them will obviously arrive late so we will start the season uprepared with an unsettled squad AGAIN. This is a consequence of TKs failed/short term transfer business. How can you say this is not a recruitment problem?
What you are saying is we need "10 players available right now that are good enough to deliver promotion at prices Fulham can afford". All we know for certain is Tony Khan sees what is available in his price range for late June and early July says "no thank you" every year, except last season when he bought MLM and Seri a little earlier (which proves he gets better value nearer deadline day).
Quote from: S.F.Sorrow on June 13, 2019, 10:27:35 AM
Then there's the failed strategy of signing injured (or recently injured/unfit) players. Especially in the January window when we needed results FAST. What did TK get us?
Yes, Tony Khan has been signing injured players, because he couldn't buy uninjured players of their quality. Fulham signed a i) injured Mawson (with an uninjured MLM), ii) unfit Babel (with a fit Vietto). Does anyone seriously think FFC had the option to sign an uninjured Mawson and a fit Babel?
Quote from: S.F.Sorrow on June 13, 2019, 10:27:35 AM
Chambers signed Aug 7th. Bryan signed Aug 9th. Both started against Palace Aug 11th. That's insane! I think Chambers got a lot of undeserved critisism considering the circumstances. I'm sure he would have done better at CB if given more time to prepare.
I totally agree that Chambers and Bryan were bought late, but Christie and MLM were the best options FFC could find early for the 18/19 season. If you saying "getting a player of Chambers quality when we bought MLM" and "getting a player of Bryan's quality when we got Christie" would have helped there is no doubt your right. Do actually believe we could have loaned Chambers in early June?
Quote from: S.F.Sorrow on June 13, 2019, 10:27:35 AM
And how can you be so certain that Shahid Khan won't financially back any other DoF than his son? This seems to be your main argument for supporting TK.
I cannot be certain Shahid Khan won't financially back another DoF. If he 100% backs another DoF as much as this one we are fine, but the owner backing his DoF is the first, second and third most important things at the club. The financial backing table indicates that Tony Khan wasn't backed as much as at least 16 other teams in the Premier League, so relegation was partly caused by TK not being backed enough. Most fans believes Shahid Khan would have liked to have backed his DoF more, but FFP simply won't let him do it. Financial backing is essential essential essential.
Quote from: S.F.Sorrow on June 13, 2019, 10:27:35 AM
You say if Shahid Khan won't back a new DoF, I would want both father and son out.
If father and son leave, then whom will buy it and why would they buy the club (for its assets or to be a team).
According to the Fulham Accounts 17/18, the Fulham's freehold land is worth £130 million without rezoning (rezoning the cottage could double that value).
If someone wants to buy a mid-table Championship Club, then the typically price £40-70 million, like Wolves sold for 50 million.
We know that asset strippers (i.e. with property developers) would probably offer to buy Fulham for more than the accounting price of the land £130 million, but would a billionaire wanting to own a football Club be willing to pay £80 million more for Fulham over say Sheffield Wednesday (or pay £30 million more for Fulham than Sunderland).
If the Khan's sell to asset strippers, then it could be very very dark days indeed. Don't wish for it.
Well said. Couldn't agree more.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 16, 2019, 05:47:38 AM
A "normal success rate" would mean the three teams that have spend the least will go down.
As you can see that happened last season, of course we all hoped for exceptional performance (like Wolves).
Transfer Spending on Players (since season promoted from Championship)
14 Newcastle United £151.03m
15 Brighton & Hove Albion £145.45m
16 Burnley £126.04m
17 Wolves £123.18m
18 Fulham £122.46m
19 Huddersfield Town £100.72m
20 Cardiff City £57.48m
Sorry but this table compares teams' spending over different lengths of time, which seems to me a very poor analysis.
You posted a much fairer analysis, which was spending over the last 3 yrs, and IIRC that indicated we should have finished 17th, and not been relegated.
And I retain the strong personal opinion that an even better analysis involves not just looking at league position, but points achieved. To say we finished 19th versus a target of 17th doesn't sound like terrible underperformance - it's only two places after all. But in reality we were a long, long way off 17th, 10 points off ultimately.
As I said in another post, comparing our spending over the last 3 yrs to points achieved, we performed worse than almost all our peer clubs. Yes we should have expected to finish below the likes of Watford and Palace, but not 23-24 points below them.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 16, 2019, 05:47:38 AM
Quote from: S.F.Sorrow on June 13, 2019, 10:27:35 AM
Over the last couple of seasons we've spent far too much money on players that should be better than 'decent' considering what we paid for them: Sigurdsson, Jozabed, Fonte, Seri.
Yes, but we have also made good and bad signings. As I said, we got relegated due to a normal success rate.
A "normal success rate" means the team selling normally get the player value more correct than the buying club.
Have we normally got better value than the selling club? Really?
I'm sure we got good deals for the likes of Aluko and Malone. But does the value we got there exceed the amount we overpaid (versus their current market value) for other players?
For example Fonte, Kamara and Anguissa cost what, £35-40m? I reckon the current market value of those 3 now is about £10-£15m.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 16, 2019, 05:47:38 AM
last season when he bought MLM and Seri a little earlier (which proves he gets better value nearer deadline day).
Surely the Anguissa signing on deadline day disproves that theory
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 16, 2019, 05:47:38 AM
Do actually believe we could have loaned Chambers in early June?
What evidence do you have that we couldn't?
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 16, 2019, 05:47:38 AM
Does anyone seriously think FFC had the option to sign an uninjured Mawson
Again, what evidence do you have that we couldn't?
We signed Mawson from a Championship club. He was hardly a coup, or out of our league.
I'm sure there were equally good CBs out there who weren't injured, that we could realistically have targeted.
And even if there weren't, we'd have been better off with a good CB playing 38 games than a very good CB playing 15 games.
Quote from: Statto on June 16, 2019, 08:35:50 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 16, 2019, 05:47:38 AM
A "normal success rate" would mean the three teams that have spend the least will go down.
As you can see that happened last season, of course we all hoped for exceptional performance (like Wolves).
Transfer Spending on Players (since season promoted from Championship)
14 Newcastle United £151.03m
15 Brighton & Hove Albion £145.45m
16 Burnley £126.04m
17 Wolves £123.18m
18 Fulham £122.46m
19 Huddersfield Town £100.72m
20 Cardiff City £57.48m
Sorry but this table compares teams' spending over different lengths of time, which seems to me a very poor analysis.
You posted a much fairer analysis, which was spending over the last 3 yrs, and IIRC that indicated we should have finished 17th, and not been relegated.
And I retain the strong personal opinion that an even better analysis involves not just looking at league position, but points achieved. To say we finished 19th versus a target of 17th doesn't sound like terrible underperformance - it's only two places after all. But in reality we were a long, long way off 17th, 10 points off ultimately.
As I said in another post, comparing our spending over the last 3 yrs to points achieved, we performed worse than almost all our peer clubs. Yes we should have expected to finish below the likes of Watford and Palace, but not 23-24 points below them.
Well, the analysis is highly coorelated to results and infinitely better than transfer spending spending for a single year, which every pundit seems to quote at constantly, although if that £100m figure was some important Tottenham £0m should have been relegated has year and Chelsea should be relegated this year. My table shows something important, we spent enough to be equal with Brighton and should have been ahead of Cardiff. We can blame Tony Khan, but Chris Houghton and Colin also did a great job at being hard to beat, while we didn't.
If you want to say why Brighton were ahead of us, recruitment and tactics both contributed. We got three points against all of the bottom six teams, but Brighton did much better against top 13 teams than us. While 12 points is our shortfall, any analysis that doesn't blame TK, Scouts, Slavisa, Ranieri, Players and assistant coaches (eg Parker) is incomplete an analysis. As the end of the season proved we don't need a revolution, we need to keep building and most of all retain good players more.
Quote from: Statto on June 16, 2019, 08:45:50 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 16, 2019, 05:47:38 AM
Do actually believe we could have loaned Chambers in early June?
What evidence do you have that we couldn't?
We don't know if Tony Khan rejected Chambers earlier in the window, but Calum Chambers came with excellent statistics in the EPL for his price. Tony Khan is innocent until proven guilty, I think it's unfair to accuse Tony Khan of not loaning Chambers earlier especially as it was pretty clearly a surprise to Chambers when Arsenal organised the loan.
What is worse if Tony Khan leaves DoF on false accusations his love of the club and his fathers love if the club will disappear. Then, The Khans will sell the club for £200m and who would want to pay that price except "assets stripping property developers", when you buy either Sheffield team for under 200m.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 16, 2019, 05:47:38 AM
Yes, Tony Khan has been signing injured players, because he couldn't buy uninjured players of their quality. Fulham signed a i) injured Mawson (with an uninjured MLM), ii) unfit Babel (with a fit Vietto). Does anyone seriously think FFC had the option to sign an uninjured Mawson and a fit Babel?
That still doesn't make it a good idea to sign injured players and pay their wages for doing nothing. Mawson will hopefully be an important player for us next season but Nordtveit and Markovic were a complete waste of money. Babel too, under the circumstances (signed too late, not match fit until we were more or less relegated).
As for your list of transfer spendings it just confirms what I already knew: The other two promoted clubs kept most of their promotion squads intact and built on it. They both performed above expectations. We suffered from TKs short term tactics/loans, had to re-build, got poor value for money because everyone knew we were desperate and suffered badly from it.
You make some fair points but you also make a lot of assumptions and post them as facts. Like Christie/MLM being the best options Fulham could possibly get early in the transfer window. Or that it would be impossible for FFC to sign an uninjured player of Mawson's quality or loaning a fit player of Babel's quality. If that's a FACT then what you're really saying is that we have no future in the Premier League at all because we will never be able to compete financially with any team above 18th. Is that what you really believe?
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 17, 2019, 01:33:24 AM
Quote from: Statto on June 16, 2019, 08:45:50 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 16, 2019, 05:47:38 AM
Do actually believe we could have loaned Chambers in early June?
What evidence do you have that we couldn't?
We don't know if Tony Khan rejected Chambers earlier in the window, but Calum Chambers came with excellent statistics in the EPL for his price. Tony Khan is innocent until proven guilty, I think it's unfair to accuse Tony Khan of not loaning Chambers earlier especially as it was pretty clearly a surprise to Chambers when Arsenal organised the loan.
What is worse if Tony Khan leaves DoF on false accusations his love of the club and his fathers love if the club will disappear. Then, The Khans will sell the club for £200m and who would want to pay that price except "assets stripping property developers", when you buy either Sheffield team for under 200m.
TRF, I think you would be better of toning down your "if TK leaves then SK will give up all interest in the club and sell it to asset strippers" theory since it is 100% based on speculation, which also happens to be your own speculation and not even some general rumors floating around. It is not a great argument if you have to make up an entirely fictional scenario just to support it. If we are doing that, then I can make up one of my own and then we can argue about our made up scenarios.
Now, don't get me wrong, you are of course free to speculate as wildly and as often as you like and I don't intend this to come of as rude. I just believe that it would be easier to have a serious discussion around other points (because you often also have much more relevant arguments) if you didn't constantly insert these "what if" arguments to support your overall stance.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 17, 2019, 01:33:24 AM
We don't know if Tony Khan rejected Chambers earlier in the window, but Calum Chambers came with excellent statistics in the EPL for his price. Tony Khan is innocent until proven guilty, I think it's unfair to accuse Tony Khan of not loaning Chambers earlier especially as it was pretty clearly a surprise to Chambers when Arsenal organised the loan.
What is worse if Tony Khan leaves DoF on false accusations his love of the club and his fathers love if the club will disappear. Then, The Khans will sell the club for £200m and who would want to pay that price except "assets stripping property developers", when you buy either Sheffield team for under 200m.
Salient Points:
1) TK is measured in comparison to any other DoF (or similar position).
2) FFC choose, as most clubs do, to keep their dealings hidden. That encourages speculation, assumption, and controversy.
3) At the end of a window we know what has happened through the official transfer listings for both signings and loans. We do not know prices and costs other than via speculation and what can be gleaned from accountancy sheets.
4) We can all judge the merits of that business via what happens on the pitch as a team sport with individuals contributing to the whole.
5) Since the Khans arrived they have had one successful season (2017/18) and one near miss (2016/17). The rest have been largely unsuccessful.
6) There have been many expensive and unsuccessful signings.
7) There have been many hopelessly risky signings of players unfit at the time of signing and risky signings of players who were fit but perhaps untried in English football.
8) Many of our 'targets' for transfers do not appear to have been interested in coming here.
There is (or maybe) a long term role for TK at FFC but it might help the cause if he was handled and bossed a little better by those around him as a part of his learning curve. His father could make that happen overnight.
If there is no real love in the Khans' relationship with FFC then trying to make up that there is real love is the folly of all follies. If personal pride is the only reason the Khans are still here than we are shafted already.
Quote from: Sting of the North on June 17, 2019, 07:58:34 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 17, 2019, 01:33:24 AM
What is worse if Tony Khan leaves DoF on false accusations his love of the club and his fathers love if the club will disappear. Then, The Khans will sell the club for £200m and who would want to pay that price except "assets stripping property developers", when you buy either Sheffield team for under 200m.
TRF, I think you would be better of toning down your "if TK leaves then SK will give up all interest in the club and sell it to asset strippers" theory since it is 100% based on speculation, which also happens to be your own speculation and not even some general rumors floating around. It is not a great argument if you have to make up an entirely fictional scenario just to support it. If we are doing that, then I can make up one of my own and then we can argue about our made up scenarios.
Now, don't get me wrong, you are of course free to speculate as wildly and as often as you like and I don't intend this to come of as rude. I just believe that it would be easier to have a serious discussion around other points (because you often also have much more relevant arguments) if you didn't constantly insert these "what if" arguments to support your overall stance.
I never understand some fans' obsession with the idea of "asset stripping".
A football club is worth far more as a football club than the sum of its component parts, broken down and liquidated.
Any owner who chooses to liquidate a club will suffer a massive personal financial loss, not to mention have as their legacy the destruction of something that had existed for a century before they came along and was a vital part of tens of thousands of peoples' lives. I'm not sure why any wealthy person would choose to do that.
Of course we're susceptible to the risk that a chairman goes nuts and decides to smash up the place regardless, or just that he (or his successor) decides it would make more economic sense for the club to play its home matches on some cheap plot of land out of town. But that risk is the same for almost every one of the 90-odd professional clubs in this country, for whom their most valuable asset is a stadium, located on some prime real estate near the town centre and train station.
In fact, since development opportunities at CC are restricted by the listed status of the main stand, and the chairman has just approved work to rebuild the other side of the ground, we're surely at less risk than most other clubs.
Quote from: Statto on June 17, 2019, 01:01:42 PM
A football club is worth far more as a football club than the sum of its component parts, broken down and liquidated.
You state a football club is worth more than the sum of its component parts.
I don't know what Fulham is worth as Football Club. What I know is
On the 21st June 2016, Fosun International estimated Wolves were worth £45m for Wolves as a Football Club and the old owners sold at that price.
On the 30th June 2016, Fulham Leisure Accounts estimated Fulham to be worth £98 million liquidated (i.e. without rezoning). More than double Wolves.
Fulham has the "lowest gate receipts" of any "football team in the world" that I know of sitting on land that if rezoned is worth well over £200m if rezoned.
If "The Khans" love Fulham FC it is not a big burden on them to protect the club. The owner pouring either £13m or £35m every season to cover his sons mistakes isn't so bad, besides all DoFs make mistakes we are just lucky to have an owner that keeps backing him 100%, but any new owners are a total unknown quantity.
I appreciate the candour of anyone saying that almost any football club may be endangered in the hands of the wrong person. We all know that to be true and history shows plenty to have fallen by the wayside or been merged in order to survive. It is also a fool who believes it will never happen to them. It is one good reason to stay in the here and now and to soak up current events, show solidarity with things that promote optimism within the Club, and reject foolish decisions and actions that harm that optimism. I sincerely hope that the listed status of Archie Leitch's stand is not the only thing keeping 'bad news' from us and that the Riverside development and the walkway, when finished, will harness a new era of community spirit and local appreciation of Craven Cottage. It is not your typical football ground or football club.
We shall see. The future will be what it will be.
Quote from: toshes mate on June 18, 2019, 07:19:43 AM
I appreciate the candour of anyone saying that almost any football club may be endangered in the hands of the wrong person. We all know that to be true and history shows plenty to have fallen by the wayside or been merged in order to survive. It is also a fool who believes it will never happen to them. It is one good reason to stay in the here and now and to soak up current events, show solidarity with things that promote optimism within the Club, and reject foolish decisions and actions that harm that optimism. I sincerely hope that the listed status of Archie Leitch's stand is not the only thing keeping 'bad news' from us and that the Riverside development and the walkway, when finished, will harness a new era of community spirit and local appreciation of Craven Cottage. It is not your typical football ground or football club.
We shall see. The future will be what it will be.
To be fair Highbury was listed as well and that was converted into flats.
Quote from: Ols_S on June 18, 2019, 09:45:18 AM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 18, 2019, 07:19:43 AM
I appreciate the candour of anyone saying that almost any football club may be endangered in the hands of the wrong person. We all know that to be true and history shows plenty to have fallen by the wayside or been merged in order to survive. It is also a fool who believes it will never happen to them. It is one good reason to stay in the here and now and to soak up current events, show solidarity with things that promote optimism within the Club, and reject foolish decisions and actions that harm that optimism. I sincerely hope that the listed status of Archie Leitch's stand is not the only thing keeping 'bad news' from us and that the Riverside development and the walkway, when finished, will harness a new era of community spirit and local appreciation of Craven Cottage. It is not your typical football ground or football club.
We shall see. The future will be what it will be.
To be fair Highbury was listed as well and that was converted into flats.
Very true, and any glance at the English Heritage Listings Information will demonstrate that it is by no means certain that 'any' grade II listing will be conserved unless some way can be found to fund that conservation. That is why I said
I hope it isn't the only thing keeping us at Craven Cottage.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 18, 2019, 03:40:27 AM
Quote from: Statto on June 17, 2019, 01:01:42 PM
A football club is worth far more as a football club than the sum of its component parts, broken down and liquidated.
You state a football club is worth more than the sum of its component parts.
I don't know what Fulham is worth as Football Club.
Shahid Khan bought us for an inflation-adjusted price of about £250m, with a weaker, older squad and without additional land at Motspur Park. So I'm guessing FFC is worth about £300m now.
So a liquidator comes in, buys a club for £300m just to get a plot of land which, subject to "rezoning" (by which I assume you mean planning permission for change in use?) might, after going through the planning process (which based on our own experience with the Riverside stand, will probably take about 60 years) be able to build some flats then sell the land for £200m.
You wouldn't get far on Dragons' Den with that as a business proposal.
Quote from: Statto on June 18, 2019, 01:57:34 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 18, 2019, 03:40:27 AM
Quote from: Statto on June 17, 2019, 01:01:42 PM
A football club is worth far more as a football club than the sum of its component parts, broken down and liquidated.
You state a football club is worth more than the sum of its component parts.
I don't know what Fulham is worth as Football Club.
Shahid Khan bought us for an inflation-adjusted price of about £250m, with a weaker, older squad and without additional land at Motspur Park. So I'm guessing FFC is worth about £300m now.
So a liquidator comes in, buys a club for £300m just to get a plot of land which, subject to "rezoning" (by which I assume you mean planning permission for change in use?) might, after going through the planning process (which based on our own experience with the Riverside stand, will probably take about 60 years) be able to build some flats then sell the land for £200m.
You wouldn't get far on Dragons' Den with that as a business proposal.
Newcastle United is worth around £350m as football club and Charlton is estimated around £60m. As long as our value of our club is over 150 million, we are probably pretty safe, because according to the accounts the land value of the club is current £130 million without any rezoning (which I assume means as a football pitch).
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 18, 2019, 03:03:23 PM
Quote from: Statto on June 18, 2019, 01:57:34 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 18, 2019, 03:40:27 AM
Quote from: Statto on June 17, 2019, 01:01:42 PM
A football club is worth far more as a football club than the sum of its component parts, broken down and liquidated.
You state a football club is worth more than the sum of its component parts.
I don't know what Fulham is worth as Football Club.
Shahid Khan bought us for an inflation-adjusted price of about £250m, with a weaker, older squad and without additional land at Motspur Park. So I'm guessing FFC is worth about £300m now.
So a liquidator comes in, buys a club for £300m just to get a plot of land which, subject to "rezoning" (by which I assume you mean planning permission for change in use?) might, after going through the planning process (which based on our own experience with the Riverside stand, will probably take about 60 years) be able to build some flats then sell the land for £200m.
You wouldn't get far on Dragons' Den with that as a business proposal.
Newcastle United is worth around £350m as football club and Charlton is estimated around £60m. As long as our value of our club is over 150 million, we are probably pretty safe, because according to the accounts the land value of the club is current £130 million without any rezoning (which I assume means as a football pitch).
well if the land is worth £130m-£200m then the value of the company that owns it is never going to be below that amount, is it
I hope I can do justice to my brand new 'avatar' kindly provided by WhiteJC. Our 'mods' really do look after us.
Just to expand a little on the land value of Craven Cottage which would of course be affected by any 'change of use' planning consent and what that consent is for. However, the process of getting through change of use consent would probably be spectacularly lengthy given the vested interest the local council and community interests (in addition to the football interests and the listed status) would have in preserving football at the Cottage because it brings in business beyond the football itself. Consent would never be impossible but never be a certainty either.
I have no idea what the current value of the site is, but in c.1960 the better 4-bed+ semi-detached properties in the better streets between Fulham Palace Road and Stevenage Road sold for around £3000. I wouldn't like to guess what they sell for now.
Well, every owner will lose money on Fulham while in the Championship (every team in the Championship is losing money some small and some large). The only two ways for an owner to make money is become a profitable top to mid table Premier League team through "the Dragons Den of the Championship" or rezone the land through "the Dragons Den of Hammersmith Council", achieving either would easily value the club at £250m+. If the club is sold in the future and the later is more likely than the former, HELP!
Quote from: Statto on June 17, 2019, 01:01:42 PM
well if the land is worth £130m-£200m then the value of the company that owns it is never going to be below that amount, is it
If the club has run up debt, it will be worth assets - debt.
Quote from: toshes mate on June 18, 2019, 07:36:22 PM
I hope I can do justice to my brand new 'avatar' kindly provided by WhiteJC. Our 'mods' really do look after us.
Just to expand a little on the land value of Craven Cottage which would of course be affected by any 'change of use' planning consent and what that consent is for. However, the process of getting through change of use consent would probably be spectacularly lengthy given the vested interest the local council and community interests (in addition to the football interests and the listed status) would have in preserving football at the Cottage because it brings in business beyond the football itself. Consent would never be impossible but never be a certainty either.
I have no idea what the current value of the site is, but in c.1960 the better 4-bed+ semi-detached properties in the better streets between Fulham Palace Road and Stevenage Road sold for around £3000. I wouldn't like to guess what they sell for now.
I looked at property prices in the area around the ground earlier this year. Inevitably they vary widely but 3 beds start around £1.4m, ones with a loft conversion start a bit higher, genuine 4 beds start around £1.8m and prices easily go on over £2.5 for the really nice ones. Bigger properties 5 bed plus are rare unless you go towards Putney and those can reach silly money.
The average for Hammersmith and Fulham was reported in 2017 as £10,718 per square metre for houses and Craven Cottage is 23,000 square metres. So, do the maths.
Quote from: Twig on June 19, 2019, 02:20:40 AM
Quote from: toshes mate on June 18, 2019, 07:36:22 PM
I hope I can do justice to my brand new 'avatar' kindly provided by WhiteJC. Our 'mods' really do look after us.
Just to expand a little on the land value of Craven Cottage which would of course be affected by any 'change of use' planning consent and what that consent is for. However, the process of getting through change of use consent would probably be spectacularly lengthy given the vested interest the local council and community interests (in addition to the football interests and the listed status) would have in preserving football at the Cottage because it brings in business beyond the football itself. Consent would never be impossible but never be a certainty either.
I have no idea what the current value of the site is, but in c.1960 the better 4-bed+ semi-detached properties in the better streets between Fulham Palace Road and Stevenage Road sold for around £3000. I wouldn't like to guess what they sell for now.
I looked at property prices in the area around the ground earlier this year. Inevitably they vary widely but 3 beds start around £1.4m, ones with a loft conversion start a bit higher, genuine 4 beds start around £1.8m and prices easily go on over £2.5 for the really nice ones. Bigger properties 5 bed plus are rare unless you go towards Putney and those can reach silly money.
Thanks for that, Twig. I expected something in the order of the figures you give. I am also aware of the ridiculous money there is around the Putney area as a friend's family own a large property worth 'silly money' in one of the better parts. I've often wondered what alternative uses CC could provide aside from the football that would drive up its value and I was hoping to see those included in the Riverside plan but was a bit underwhelmed. Perhaps those more vibrant ideas will come later once the river walk begins to pull in more passing traffic.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 19, 2019, 04:37:17 AM
The average for Hammersmith and Fulham was reported in 2017 as £10,718 per square metre for houses and Craven Cottage is 23,000 square metres. So, do the maths.
You mean that if the full 23,000 sqm was converted into houses for no development cost, it would currently be worth almost 250 million if we were selling those houses and go by the average?
The sales price for houses would of course likely be above average, but the costs for planning, redevelopment and construction would likely also be fairly massive (if eventually permitted). So how do you arrive at a number for a potential buyer then (i.e. 'asset stripper'), assuming that they would eventually want to turn a profit? Because if surely wouldn't be by multiplying the sqm's with the average per sqm for existing houses?
Or maybe yet again I am being daft?
Quote from: Sting of the North on June 19, 2019, 08:28:59 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on June 19, 2019, 04:37:17 AM
The average for Hammersmith and Fulham was reported in 2017 as £10,718 per square metre for houses and Craven Cottage is 23,000 square metres. So, do the maths.
You mean that if the full 23,000 sqm was converted into houses for no development cost, it would currently be worth almost 250 million if we were selling those houses and go by the average?
The sales price for houses would of course likely be above average, but the costs for planning, redevelopment and construction would likely also be fairly massive (if eventually permitted). So how do you arrive at a number for a potential buyer then (i.e. 'asset stripper'), assuming that they would eventually want to turn a profit? Because if surely wouldn't be by multiplying the sqm's with the average per sqm for existing houses?
Or maybe yet again I am being daft?
No, you are not being daft. It is just as complicated an exercise in precision as Statto suggested earlier on. Yes, on paper it seems a no-brainer for an asset stripper but the reality is far from being so clearly delineated.
Quote from: guru_matt on June 19, 2019, 01:04:57 AM
Quote from: Statto on June 17, 2019, 01:01:42 PM
well if the land is worth £130m-£200m then the value of the company that owns it is never going to be below that amount, is it
If the club has run up debt, it will be worth assets - debt.
Fine but then the costs to whoever acquires the club are not only the purchase price, but also the obligation to repay the debt. So you are rearranging the equation but get the same net result (that there's no profit to be made from buying FFC purely to liquidate it and turn CC into flats).
