Which Championship Team Owner...

[RaySmith]

TK is DOF because his father owns the club, and he  can appoint who he wants.

Football isn't accountable like most businesses, with a board of directors, and shareholders,  making the decisions, it's unique, though in any business the owner can, and often does, appoint  family members in top positions.

Does anyone really think  those at the top, and who rule us, in business and life generally are there through merit, and are the best most capable, superior in intellect to everyone else? It's not what you know, but who you know, and what school you went to, and who your dad is, that get and keep you at the top of the greasy pole.

But having said that, I think TK has generally done a decent job - he's probably had more successes in overseeing our transfer  policy than failures. And who can say how someone else would have done when we  entered the Prem? It's all if's and but's, and we were only in the Prem anyway because of the Khans backing, and are lucky they didn't abandon us after our, unexpected (to them  presumably - they thought they were buying an established Prem club ) relegation.

That's my thoughts on it anyway. Time to move on from  the Prem disaster anyway, which came after our great success under the Khans in gaining promotion, and look to the future, and at the moment,  we seems to have the makings of a good team, that can hopefully achieve  things, and  make up for the disappointments of the recent past.

[The Rational Fan]

"Nepotism" is employing a relative in a position that is not in the best interest of the owner's objective for the business. Many family businesses employees their sons or daughters to give their children employment, which is fine as long as that is the owner's objective for the business. Of course, that means if the "owner's objective for the business" is to give Tony Khan experience until he's ready for "Flexi N Gate", then it is not nepotism.

Without knowing Shahid Khan's objectives for Fulham FC, you cannot know if it is nepotism. I think I am correct to assume that "employing TK" is one of SK objectives and if so its not nepotism to employ Tony Khan.

[toshes mate]

The arguments about the negative effects of nepotism should only be raised when they are observed in a business and considered to be dangerous to that business, those it employs, and its customers. The notion that Khan Snr can do what he likes is true only because of certain factors.  For example, A) his fortune is so very large; B) Football is a loss making enterprise for most; C) Football is unsustainable through gate money at is current levels of expenditure; D) Employees would suffer huge losses if football was subjected to moral rationale.  Football is a mess because authority can mix media income with live income to make its case at the top of the game, but hasn't a clue about getting the game on a better footing at grass roots.  When the foundations give way the whole house will collapse.

Khan Jnr damaged FFC by embarking on an enterprise within an enterprise - classic nepotism - without having the skill base or humility to do it in a professional way.  That begs questions about Khan Snr.

Of course all questions can be dismissed because Khan Snr has loads of money and doesn't have to care about anyone other than his son.

[Statto]

"Nepotism" is employing a relative in a position that is not in the best interest of the owner's objective for the business. Many family businesses employees their sons or daughters to give their children employment, which is fine as long as that is the owner's objective for the business. Of course, that means if the "owner's objective for the business" is to give Tony Khan experience until he's ready for "Flexi N Gate", then it is not nepotism.

Without knowing Shahid Khan's objectives for Fulham FC, you cannot know if it is nepotism. I think I am correct to assume that "employing TK" is one of SK objectives and if so its not nepotism to employ Tony Khan.

In that case there could be no concept of nepotism because where any business owner employs a person because they're his relative, rather than the best person for the job, the only explanation can be that it's his "objective for the business" to give them employment.

Of course in the real world, you cannot just take a business like a football club, that's been around much longer than you, with tens of thousands of fans, hundreds of employees and various other stakeholders and give it new objectives that only serve you.

Fulham's objective is successful football. The irony of all this is I believe Shahid Khan would fundamentally agree with that and it's only you that comes out with these odd arguments to the contrary.

[toshes mate]

"Nepotism" is employing a relative in a position that is not in the best interest of the owner's objective for the business.

Nepotism is nepotism, period.  It occurs when you favour a relative over a more serious process of competitive recruiting.  Should TK and CK have been allowed anywhere near FFC?  Would they have been allowed anywhere near FFC had SK not made such a dog's dinner of finding suitable people to manage the various factions of the business when he first arrived and was not going to do it himself?

[RaySmith]

I believe that Khan senior thought his son probably could do a good  job in the role - why wouldn't he want Fulham to be  successful, after investing so much money in it.

So he entrusted a family member, with some experience of a stats approach, and very enthusiastic, with the buying of players - though presumably Khan senior has to sign  the spending off?

The proof or not of the transfer policy can be clearly seen obviously.
And i think it has been generally successful - compared to other clubs, who all have records of expensive flops.

Also, at least  Khan senior still seems prepared to invest in the team, despite FFP, and some past expensive  failures

[toshes mate]

The proof or not of the transfer policy can be clearly seen obviously.

The notion of proof in such circumstances is a fallacy since you cannot compare like with like without having a parallel universe with a different recruiter in situ.  If you consider such ill advised reasoning very carefully you begin to understand why so many falsehoods are allowed to fester in all walks of life.  It is all very subjective.