Alistair Mackintosh

[TonyGilroy]

It's interesting to me that when we cointemplate other clubs we assume that the manager is in charge of the playing side and that the big decisions are taken by the owner.

At ManU for example we assume that its the Glazers who oversee everything and that Moyes takes responsibility for the football. I doubt if many of us know who their CEO is or assume it's a Glazer.

At Chelsea we know that Abramovich makes the calls. The CEO (Buck?) implements and does his master's bidding.

Who thinks that anyone other than Gold/Sullivan is (are?) the decider(s) at West Ham.

Tottenham is an exception where we all know Levy but he isn't I think the owner. I assume, maybe wrongly, that he has a financial stake.

Khan seems to have a get out of jail card because he's new, overseas and apparently ignorant about football although I really doubt that's true. He didn't make his money by being ignorant of his investments.

[Nick Bateman]

The main problem I see now is that Fulham will lose arguably their best player in Steve Sidwell for NOTHING at the end of the season. Ali Mack should get the sack if he allows this to happen!

[Apprentice to the Maestro]

The main problem I see now is that Fulham will lose arguably their best player in Steve Sidwell for NOTHING at the end of the season. Ali Mack should get the sack if he allows this to happen!

It's too early to get angry about this when we don't know where we will be next year, what the manager wants (maybe he will go for youth), what the current view is about length of contracts (after Murphy and Parker) and what Sidwell is asking for amongst a whole load of factors.

Sidwell has had a good season but before that he was third or fourth choice.

[hovewhite]

Don't think anybody knows how the off field organation works.
It would be good if the club came out and told us ,so we can understand as its easy to shift the blame.
I expected huddlestone to join us at the start of this season and feel it could have been so different this season.

[Denver Fulham]

The main problem I see now is that Fulham will lose arguably their best player in Steve Sidwell for NOTHING at the end of the season. Ali Mack should get the sack if he allows this to happen!

The main problem is that Sidwell has been Fulham's best player this season. Thus, 20th place.

[PokerMatt]

The main problem I see now is that Fulham will lose arguably their best player in Steve Sidwell for NOTHING at the end of the season. Ali Mack should get the sack if he allows this to happen!

The main problem is that Sidwell has been Fulham's best player this season. Thus, 20th place.

This. Absolutely this.

[ToodlesMcToot]

I really doubt that Mackintosh is making football decisions.

Under MAF I assume that he was the implementer of policy made by MAF who had trusted advisers - some on the board others not. A massive amount of knowhow was lost when MAF left.

Here's how I think things panned out this season based largely on choosing to believe what we're being told.

1. There was an assumption that Jol could be trusted and our summer transfer business was pretty good. A few vocal exceptions on here but that's how most of us saw it I think. Khan could spend a year learning the business.

2. Muelensteen came in because Jol wanted his help.

3. By the West Ham game Jol's position was untenable - he had to go. No supporter wanted him to stay. Easy decision.

4. There was  sign of improvement. No decision was made to make Rene manager but it seemed like he might make a go of it. He asked for Wilkins and Curbishly and got them.

5. The transfer window. We'll never know who our primary targets were and who chose them but as is usual you get who you can in the last few days and due diligence goes out the window.

6. After Sunderland, Swansea and Sheffield United desperation and anger sets in. There's a demand for an experienced man who's been there and done it. That feels to me like an angry demand from the owner.

This season has been an absolute disaster and had MAF been in charge I doubt it would have happened because as soon as he lost confidence in Jol a top quality replacement would have been sourced using MAF's network of contacts.

As it is I doubt that Mackintosh has been the source of our problems or had the authority to salvage the situation.

I think 1. is a bit off. Mr Khan said that both AM and Jol had a plan for this season and he was referring to transfer business as he was asked about making transfer funds available in the summer. That plan has failed miserably. If AM was credited for it in the beginning, it should be fine crediting him with it now.

I just don't see how some consider him above scrutiny in this disaster of a season. He's the CEO. He's as responsible as anyone for the end product which is the play on the field.

AM and Jol would have a plan whether Khan had given them a budget of £100m or £1m.

The chain of responsibility is owner for setting the budget, the manager for setting the transfer targets and the CEO for doing the deals.

If the owner sets an insufficient budget and/or the manager selects poor targets but the CEO does the planned deals then how is it fair to blame the CEO?

"He's the CEO. He's as responsible as anyone for the end product which is the play on the field."

This is just nonsense. Football is not like a normal business. The CEO is not responsible for the main product for which he is subordinate to the manager. And even the budget will be set by the owner rather than proposed by the CEO.

I'm sorry, but I find it difficult to believe - given many reports over the years that our managers have been provided as many players as they've had a hand in choosing - that AM is not directly involved in signing and choosing many of the players who currently make up this team. Is he the sole voice? Certainly not. But, he has a say in it all.

And if we're to believe that the manager makes all the choices in the transfer market, why is no one crediting Jol for the depth of talent we have in the academy? Many of those players were brought in during his regime. I view most all of our transfer dealings as far more of a committee approach than you apparently.

Football, whatever kind of business you see it as, has really done nothing but die a slow agonizing death at Fulham since 2008 when AM took over. Yes, we've had some good showings, but by and large the trend has been toward the bottom of the table and toward relegation. AM is the only one left who has presided over it all.

Maybe for you AM has hung the moon and is above all scrutiny. For me, he's no more above it than MAF, Khan, Jol, Rene, Sparky, or the players on the field who've all had a hand in where we find ourselves to one degree or another.

[Apprentice to the Maestro]

I really doubt that Mackintosh is making football decisions.

Under MAF I assume that he was the implementer of policy made by MAF who had trusted advisers - some on the board others not. A massive amount of knowhow was lost when MAF left.

Here's how I think things panned out this season based largely on choosing to believe what we're being told.

1. There was an assumption that Jol could be trusted and our summer transfer business was pretty good. A few vocal exceptions on here but that's how most of us saw it I think. Khan could spend a year learning the business.

2. Muelensteen came in because Jol wanted his help.

3. By the West Ham game Jol's position was untenable - he had to go. No supporter wanted him to stay. Easy decision.

4. There was  sign of improvement. No decision was made to make Rene manager but it seemed like he might make a go of it. He asked for Wilkins and Curbishly and got them.

5. The transfer window. We'll never know who our primary targets were and who chose them but as is usual you get who you can in the last few days and due diligence goes out the window.

6. After Sunderland, Swansea and Sheffield United desperation and anger sets in. There's a demand for an experienced man who's been there and done it. That feels to me like an angry demand from the owner.

This season has been an absolute disaster and had MAF been in charge I doubt it would have happened because as soon as he lost confidence in Jol a top quality replacement would have been sourced using MAF's network of contacts.

As it is I doubt that Mackintosh has been the source of our problems or had the authority to salvage the situation.

I think 1. is a bit off. Mr Khan said that both AM and Jol had a plan for this season and he was referring to transfer business as he was asked about making transfer funds available in the summer. That plan has failed miserably. If AM was credited for it in the beginning, it should be fine crediting him with it now.

I just don't see how some consider him above scrutiny in this disaster of a season. He's the CEO. He's as responsible as anyone for the end product which is the play on the field.

AM and Jol would have a plan whether Khan had given them a budget of £100m or £1m.

The chain of responsibility is owner for setting the budget, the manager for setting the transfer targets and the CEO for doing the deals.

If the owner sets an insufficient budget and/or the manager selects poor targets but the CEO does the planned deals then how is it fair to blame the CEO?

"He's the CEO. He's as responsible as anyone for the end product which is the play on the field."

This is just nonsense. Football is not like a normal business. The CEO is not responsible for the main product for which he is subordinate to the manager. And even the budget will be set by the owner rather than proposed by the CEO.

I'm sorry, but I find it difficult to believe - given many reports over the years that our managers have been provided as many players as they've had a hand in choosing - that AM is not directly involved in signing and choosing many of the players who currently make up this team. Is he the sole voice? Certainly not. But, he has a say in it all.

And if we're to believe that the manager makes all the choices in the transfer market, why is no one crediting Jol for the depth of talent we have in the academy? Many of those players were brought in during his regime. I view most all of our transfer dealings as far more of a committee approach than you apparently.

Football, whatever kind of business you see it as, has really done nothing but die a slow agonizing death at Fulham since 2008 when AM took over. Yes, we've had some good showings, but by and large the trend has been toward the bottom of the table and toward relegation. AM is the only one left who has presided over it all.

Maybe for you AM has hung the moon and is above all scrutiny. For me, he's no more above it than MAF, Khan, Jol, Rene, Sparky, or the players on the field who've all had a hand in where we find ourselves to one degree or another.

It really is pointless trying to have a rational discussion with someone who makes statements so ludicrous as this, completely overlooking the events leading up to 12th May 2010.

[ToodlesMcToot]

I really doubt that Mackintosh is making football decisions.

Under MAF I assume that he was the implementer of policy made by MAF who had trusted advisers - some on the board others not. A massive amount of knowhow was lost when MAF left.

Here's how I think things panned out this season based largely on choosing to believe what we're being told.

1. There was an assumption that Jol could be trusted and our summer transfer business was pretty good. A few vocal exceptions on here but that's how most of us saw it I think. Khan could spend a year learning the business.

2. Muelensteen came in because Jol wanted his help.

3. By the West Ham game Jol's position was untenable - he had to go. No supporter wanted him to stay. Easy decision.

4. There was  sign of improvement. No decision was made to make Rene manager but it seemed like he might make a go of it. He asked for Wilkins and Curbishly and got them.

5. The transfer window. We'll never know who our primary targets were and who chose them but as is usual you get who you can in the last few days and due diligence goes out the window.

6. After Sunderland, Swansea and Sheffield United desperation and anger sets in. There's a demand for an experienced man who's been there and done it. That feels to me like an angry demand from the owner.

This season has been an absolute disaster and had MAF been in charge I doubt it would have happened because as soon as he lost confidence in Jol a top quality replacement would have been sourced using MAF's network of contacts.

As it is I doubt that Mackintosh has been the source of our problems or had the authority to salvage the situation.

I think 1. is a bit off. Mr Khan said that both AM and Jol had a plan for this season and he was referring to transfer business as he was asked about making transfer funds available in the summer. That plan has failed miserably. If AM was credited for it in the beginning, it should be fine crediting him with it now.

I just don't see how some consider him above scrutiny in this disaster of a season. He's the CEO. He's as responsible as anyone for the end product which is the play on the field.

AM and Jol would have a plan whether Khan had given them a budget of £100m or £1m.

The chain of responsibility is owner for setting the budget, the manager for setting the transfer targets and the CEO for doing the deals.

If the owner sets an insufficient budget and/or the manager selects poor targets but the CEO does the planned deals then how is it fair to blame the CEO?

"He's the CEO. He's as responsible as anyone for the end product which is the play on the field."

This is just nonsense. Football is not like a normal business. The CEO is not responsible for the main product for which he is subordinate to the manager. And even the budget will be set by the owner rather than proposed by the CEO.

I'm sorry, but I find it difficult to believe - given many reports over the years that our managers have been provided as many players as they've had a hand in choosing - that AM is not directly involved in signing and choosing many of the players who currently make up this team. Is he the sole voice? Certainly not. But, he has a say in it all.

And if we're to believe that the manager makes all the choices in the transfer market, why is no one crediting Jol for the depth of talent we have in the academy? Many of those players were brought in during his regime. I view most all of our transfer dealings as far more of a committee approach than you apparently.

Football, whatever kind of business you see it as, has really done nothing but die a slow agonizing death at Fulham since 2008 when AM took over. Yes, we've had some good showings, but by and large the trend has been toward the bottom of the table and toward relegation. AM is the only one left who has presided over it all.

Maybe for you AM has hung the moon and is above all scrutiny. For me, he's no more above it than MAF, Khan, Jol, Rene, Sparky, or the players on the field who've all had a hand in where we find ourselves to one degree or another.

It really is pointless trying to have a rational discussion with someone who makes statements so ludicrous as this, completely overlooking the events leading up to 12th May 2010.

I acknowledged that we've had good showings in that time. I don't dispute that, but the trend has been downward. I don't see how you can overlook it, even if you feel it's alright to overlook me from here on out.

Nothing I've said has been irrational.  I'm not responsible for your interpretations. Perhaps you could ask for clarification before you assume that a statement is "ludicrous". If not, I may assume that you're looking for an easy way out of a losing position in this back and forth.  :54:

[Julius Geezer]

It's interesting to me that when we cointemplate other clubs we assume that the manager is in charge of the playing side and that the big decisions are taken by the owner.

At ManU for example we assume that its the Glazers who oversee everything and that Moyes takes responsibility for the football. I doubt if many of us know who their CEO is or assume it's a Glazer.

David Gill was CEO at Man Utd over the years.

Probably the best CEO in Premier League history.

He made the final decisions but not without Sir Alex's input.

[Forever Fulham]

We'll likely never know the extent of AM's involvement in recommendations  or control over player acquisition budgets/how active he was in talks with Khan over how much to spend, who to acquire, etc.  But human nature being what it is, accountants/CPAs tend to be pretty tight with the money.  And human nature being what it is, when you get a new owner, and you are now his employee, you are a little insecure about your job, and you want to impress the new owner. So, if you are the money watcher, how do you best impress the new owner?  Not by recommending heavy spending, I'll bet.  No, you show how cautious and careful you are with the owner's money.  But then your club continues losing games and sinking down the league standings.  You are limited as to whom you can bring onto the team before the break.  So you and your current manager wait.  And while waiting, everyone scouts around for available quality players to fill key positions.  But so are all of the other teams.  When the break ended, and the window closed, pundits asserted Fulham had done quite well, bringing in good players.  But then we kept losing.  And now people are arguing we didn't acquire enough new players.   Mitro is hurt.  But I don't know when or how he got hurt.  The Powers that Be must have considered his injury minor enough or short term in nature sufficient to rationalize giving him that pay day.  I assume they take medical exams, and the recruited player has to pass the doc's tests, right?  So you can't blame AM for Mitro's injury or the time it has taken for him to get to 100%. 

I thought it was wrong to give a multiyear contract to Parker, given his age.  But Jol must have thought he was more than capable of playing effectively for several years.  The CPA has to defer to the manager on player skills/abilities assessments.  I would think the CPA would just intervene and nix the deal if he thought the asking price was just way out of whack with the going rate for players of the desired one's perceived qualities.  On paper, Bent's signing, I thought, made sense.  But he hasn't recreated his past numbers.  Neither did Berbatov.  But then, one can argue they can't play in a vacuum.  They needed service (which they didn't get), some effective wide players to give and go, and holding mids who would be effective enough to allow the forwards and attacking mids to spend more time up rather than ever-drifting back.   What a mess.

[DJinNJ]

I really doubt that Mackintosh is making football decisions.

Under MAF I assume that he was the implementer of policy made by MAF who had trusted advisers - some on the board others not. A massive amount of knowhow was lost when MAF left.

Here's how I think things panned out this season based largely on choosing to believe what we're being told.

1. There was an assumption that Jol could be trusted and our summer transfer business was pretty good. A few vocal exceptions on here but that's how most of us saw it I think. Khan could spend a year learning the business.

2. Muelensteen came in because Jol wanted his help.

3. By the West Ham game Jol's position was untenable - he had to go. No supporter wanted him to stay. Easy decision.

4. There was  sign of improvement. No decision was made to make Rene manager but it seemed like he might make a go of it. He asked for Wilkins and Curbishly and got them.

5. The transfer window. We'll never know who our primary targets were and who chose them but as is usual you get who you can in the last few days and due diligence goes out the window.

6. After Sunderland, Swansea and Sheffield United desperation and anger sets in. There's a demand for an experienced man who's been there and done it. That feels to me like an angry demand from the owner.

This season has been an absolute disaster and had MAF been in charge I doubt it would have happened because as soon as he lost confidence in Jol a top quality replacement would have been sourced using MAF's network of contacts.

As it is I doubt that Mackintosh has been the source of our problems or had the authority to salvage the situation.

I think 1. is a bit off. Mr Khan said that both AM and Jol had a plan for this season and he was referring to transfer business as he was asked about making transfer funds available in the summer. That plan has failed miserably. If AM was credited for it in the beginning, it should be fine crediting him with it now.

I just don't see how some consider him above scrutiny in this disaster of a season. He's the CEO. He's as responsible as anyone for the end product which is the play on the field.

AM and Jol would have a plan whether Khan had given them a budget of £100m or £1m.

The chain of responsibility is owner for setting the budget, the manager for setting the transfer targets and the CEO for doing the deals.

If the owner sets an insufficient budget and/or the manager selects poor targets but the CEO does the planned deals then how is it fair to blame the CEO?

"He's the CEO. He's as responsible as anyone for the end product which is the play on the field."

This is just nonsense. Football is not like a normal business. The CEO is not responsible for the main product for which he is subordinate to the manager. And even the budget will be set by the owner rather than proposed by the CEO.

I'm sorry, but I find it difficult to believe - given many reports over the years that our managers have been provided as many players as they've had a hand in choosing - that AM is not directly involved in signing and choosing many of the players who currently make up this team. Is he the sole voice? Certainly not. But, he has a say in it all.

And if we're to believe that the manager makes all the choices in the transfer market, why is no one crediting Jol for the depth of talent we have in the academy? Many of those players were brought in during his regime. I view most all of our transfer dealings as far more of a committee approach than you apparently.

Football, whatever kind of business you see it as, has really done nothing but die a slow agonizing death at Fulham since 2008 when AM took over. Yes, we've had some good showings, but by and large the trend has been toward the bottom of the table and toward relegation. AM is the only one left who has presided over it all.

Maybe for you AM has hung the moon and is above all scrutiny. For me, he's no more above it than MAF, Khan, Jol, Rene, Sparky, or the players on the field who've all had a hand in where we find ourselves to one degree or another.

It really is pointless trying to have a rational discussion with someone who makes statements so ludicrous as this, completely overlooking the events leading up to 12th May 2010.

True, it is difficult to argue that the decline started the season we went from 17th to 7th. I don't think anyone thought we were in decline at the end of the 2010 season, or even the 2011 season. That doesn't mean that weren't problems going back before that which might only be clear in hindsight, but to pick 2008 as the start of a "slow agonizing death", at the very moment we were beginning a meteoric rise that brought the club to the greatest heights it had ever reached, seems to be designed to place the blame on someone who arrived at that specific time.

I think the problem wasn't that we got Mackintosh, but rather that we lost Hodgson. Hughes and Jol are fine managers but, respectively, didn't want to and didn't know how to build a squad on a budget.  Mackintosh may have had the final say on what players we were willing to spend money on (based on the budget set by the owner) and may have influenced whether we could get certain players based on the deals he was able to negotiate. So in some sense he may be responsible, and perhaps he is also partially responsible for his role in hiring the wrong managers. But it seems that most clubs let the manager have a significant role in transfers, and I would guess the primary role in identifying targets, and I wouldn't think we would be much different. And there's more support for that theory when you look at Hodgson's record compared to his successors, since they were all under the same CEO (and owner, until recently). In fact, when it was more fashionable to blame Jol for everything that went wrong, it seemed like the prevailing attitude was that manager had complete control. Now Jol is gone and things haven't gotten better, so we have to find something or someone else. That doesn't mean I think he's above reproach, but I do think that he's getting an undue amount of blame due to being the most convenient target at the moment.

[RaySmith]

This is all futile speculation.

[Apprentice to the Maestro]

I really doubt that Mackintosh is making football decisions.

Under MAF I assume that he was the implementer of policy made by MAF who had trusted advisers - some on the board others not. A massive amount of knowhow was lost when MAF left.

Here's how I think things panned out this season based largely on choosing to believe what we're being told.

1. There was an assumption that Jol could be trusted and our summer transfer business was pretty good. A few vocal exceptions on here but that's how most of us saw it I think. Khan could spend a year learning the business.

2. Muelensteen came in because Jol wanted his help.

3. By the West Ham game Jol's position was untenable - he had to go. No supporter wanted him to stay. Easy decision.

4. There was  sign of improvement. No decision was made to make Rene manager but it seemed like he might make a go of it. He asked for Wilkins and Curbishly and got them.

5. The transfer window. We'll never know who our primary targets were and who chose them but as is usual you get who you can in the last few days and due diligence goes out the window.

6. After Sunderland, Swansea and Sheffield United desperation and anger sets in. There's a demand for an experienced man who's been there and done it. That feels to me like an angry demand from the owner.

This season has been an absolute disaster and had MAF been in charge I doubt it would have happened because as soon as he lost confidence in Jol a top quality replacement would have been sourced using MAF's network of contacts.

As it is I doubt that Mackintosh has been the source of our problems or had the authority to salvage the situation.

I think 1. is a bit off. Mr Khan said that both AM and Jol had a plan for this season and he was referring to transfer business as he was asked about making transfer funds available in the summer. That plan has failed miserably. If AM was credited for it in the beginning, it should be fine crediting him with it now.

I just don't see how some consider him above scrutiny in this disaster of a season. He's the CEO. He's as responsible as anyone for the end product which is the play on the field.

AM and Jol would have a plan whether Khan had given them a budget of £100m or £1m.

The chain of responsibility is owner for setting the budget, the manager for setting the transfer targets and the CEO for doing the deals.

If the owner sets an insufficient budget and/or the manager selects poor targets but the CEO does the planned deals then how is it fair to blame the CEO?

"He's the CEO. He's as responsible as anyone for the end product which is the play on the field."

This is just nonsense. Football is not like a normal business. The CEO is not responsible for the main product for which he is subordinate to the manager. And even the budget will be set by the owner rather than proposed by the CEO.

I'm sorry, but I find it difficult to believe - given many reports over the years that our managers have been provided as many players as they've had a hand in choosing - that AM is not directly involved in signing and choosing many of the players who currently make up this team. Is he the sole voice? Certainly not. But, he has a say in it all.

And if we're to believe that the manager makes all the choices in the transfer market, why is no one crediting Jol for the depth of talent we have in the academy? Many of those players were brought in during his regime. I view most all of our transfer dealings as far more of a committee approach than you apparently.

Football, whatever kind of business you see it as, has really done nothing but die a slow agonizing death at Fulham since 2008 when AM took over. Yes, we've had some good showings, but by and large the trend has been toward the bottom of the table and toward relegation. AM is the only one left who has presided over it all.

Maybe for you AM has hung the moon and is above all scrutiny. For me, he's no more above it than MAF, Khan, Jol, Rene, Sparky, or the players on the field who've all had a hand in where we find ourselves to one degree or another.

It really is pointless trying to have a rational discussion with someone who makes statements so ludicrous as this, completely overlooking the events leading up to 12th May 2010.

I acknowledged that we've had good showings in that time. I don't dispute that, but the trend has been downward. I don't see how you can overlook it, even if you feel it's alright to overlook me from here on out.

Nothing I've said has been irrational.  I'm not responsible for your interpretations. Perhaps you could ask for clarification before you assume that a statement is "ludicrous". If not, I may assume that you're looking for an easy way out of a losing position in this back and forth.  :54:

The period during which, according to you, we have had to watch the club "die a slow agonizing death at Fulham since 2008 when AM took over" included our two highest league placings ever and a European final.

It takes some skill to hold these two thoughts in a mind and not blow a fuse.

Two thoughts:
     - maybe you were following Man. Utd. or some other club before 2008 and have got you records mixed up?
     - the period of our decline also closely correlates with the period of Dempsey's presence so that must similarly be a candidate for the cause.

[ToodlesMcToot]

I really doubt that Mackintosh is making football decisions.

Under MAF I assume that he was the implementer of policy made by MAF who had trusted advisers - some on the board others not. A massive amount of knowhow was lost when MAF left.

Here's how I think things panned out this season based largely on choosing to believe what we're being told.

1. There was an assumption that Jol could be trusted and our summer transfer business was pretty good. A few vocal exceptions on here but that's how most of us saw it I think. Khan could spend a year learning the business.

2. Muelensteen came in because Jol wanted his help.

3. By the West Ham game Jol's position was untenable - he had to go. No supporter wanted him to stay. Easy decision.

4. There was  sign of improvement. No decision was made to make Rene manager but it seemed like he might make a go of it. He asked for Wilkins and Curbishly and got them.

5. The transfer window. We'll never know who our primary targets were and who chose them but as is usual you get who you can in the last few days and due diligence goes out the window.

6. After Sunderland, Swansea and Sheffield United desperation and anger sets in. There's a demand for an experienced man who's been there and done it. That feels to me like an angry demand from the owner.

This season has been an absolute disaster and had MAF been in charge I doubt it would have happened because as soon as he lost confidence in Jol a top quality replacement would have been sourced using MAF's network of contacts.

As it is I doubt that Mackintosh has been the source of our problems or had the authority to salvage the situation.

I think 1. is a bit off. Mr Khan said that both AM and Jol had a plan for this season and he was referring to transfer business as he was asked about making transfer funds available in the summer. That plan has failed miserably. If AM was credited for it in the beginning, it should be fine crediting him with it now.

I just don't see how some consider him above scrutiny in this disaster of a season. He's the CEO. He's as responsible as anyone for the end product which is the play on the field.

AM and Jol would have a plan whether Khan had given them a budget of £100m or £1m.

The chain of responsibility is owner for setting the budget, the manager for setting the transfer targets and the CEO for doing the deals.

If the owner sets an insufficient budget and/or the manager selects poor targets but the CEO does the planned deals then how is it fair to blame the CEO?

"He's the CEO. He's as responsible as anyone for the end product which is the play on the field."

This is just nonsense. Football is not like a normal business. The CEO is not responsible for the main product for which he is subordinate to the manager. And even the budget will be set by the owner rather than proposed by the CEO.

I'm sorry, but I find it difficult to believe - given many reports over the years that our managers have been provided as many players as they've had a hand in choosing - that AM is not directly involved in signing and choosing many of the players who currently make up this team. Is he the sole voice? Certainly not. But, he has a say in it all.

And if we're to believe that the manager makes all the choices in the transfer market, why is no one crediting Jol for the depth of talent we have in the academy? Many of those players were brought in during his regime. I view most all of our transfer dealings as far more of a committee approach than you apparently.

Football, whatever kind of business you see it as, has really done nothing but die a slow agonizing death at Fulham since 2008 when AM took over. Yes, we've had some good showings, but by and large the trend has been toward the bottom of the table and toward relegation. AM is the only one left who has presided over it all.

Maybe for you AM has hung the moon and is above all scrutiny. For me, he's no more above it than MAF, Khan, Jol, Rene, Sparky, or the players on the field who've all had a hand in where we find ourselves to one degree or another.

It really is pointless trying to have a rational discussion with someone who makes statements so ludicrous as this, completely overlooking the events leading up to 12th May 2010.

I acknowledged that we've had good showings in that time. I don't dispute that, but the trend has been downward. I don't see how you can overlook it, even if you feel it's alright to overlook me from here on out.

Nothing I've said has been irrational.  I'm not responsible for your interpretations. Perhaps you could ask for clarification before you assume that a statement is "ludicrous". If not, I may assume that you're looking for an easy way out of a losing position in this back and forth.  :54:

The period during which, according to you, we have had to watch the club "die a slow agonizing death at Fulham since 2008 when AM took over" included our two highest league placings ever and a European final.

It takes some skill to hold these two thoughts in a mind and not blow a fuse.

Two thoughts:
     - maybe you were following Man. Utd. or some other club before 2008 and have got you records mixed up?
     - the period of our decline also closely correlates with the period of Dempsey's presence so that must similarly be a candidate for the cause.

We never properly invested in our squad or our academy when we should have during that time to backfill positions as the players from those seasons you mention aged or priced themselves out of the squad.

I never contended that we didn't have good or even great seasons. You assumed that I did. 

Responding to your two thoughts: 1. I never followed any other PL club. Only Fulham. 2. You are right that most of my time coincides with Dempsey's presence within the club. It also coincides with Murph's. The slow decline I'm speaking of has nothing to do with losing Dempsey but, we can look at Murphy as a prime example of it. We had him for 5 seasons, never signed a player to understudy and eventually replace him. Never tried bringing an academy player thu to replace him. Only a moment of inspiration from Jol gave us a glimpse at what Dembélé truly could have been and we lost him. Then the "fix"  to that problem was finally found this past summer in a 34 year old Parker. That's turned out swimmingly.

This kind of thing is indicative of the decline we've experience since 2008. And to have a decline you've got to have a starting point that's higher than where you are. You might have realized this if you weren't so busy trying to find insults to throw my way.

You should probably hop down off that "You're American, so you must only be in it for the American players" high horse. It's become a crutch for some of you. I've had faith that you could be more creative than that - starting to believe the faith may have been misplaced though.

[alfie]

The main problem I see now is that Fulham will lose arguably their best player in Steve Sidwell for NOTHING at the end of the season. Ali Mack should get the sack if he allows this to happen!

and what if Sidwell rejects any offer put to him, hardly Mack's fault.

[fulhamrover]

The main problem I see now is that Fulham will lose arguably their best player in Steve Sidwell for NOTHING at the end of the season. Ali Mack should get the sack if he allows this to happen!

and what if Sidwell rejects any offer put to him, hardly Mack's fault.

Sidwell is bang average. It is nothing to boast about saying he is our best player. Someone like Hull will pick him up. He'd be an asset in the Championship but at the same time if we do resign him will put a block on the likes of Chris David coming through.

[Apprentice to the Maestro]

We never properly invested in our squad or our academy when we should have during that time to backfill positions as the players from those seasons you mention aged or priced themselves out of the squad.

I never contended that we didn't have good or even great seasons. You assumed that I did.  

Responding to your two thoughts: 1. I never followed any other PL club. Only Fulham. 2. You are right that most of my time coincides with Dempsey's presence within the club. It also coincides with Murph's. The slow decline I'm speaking of has nothing to do with losing Dempsey but, we can look at Murphy as a prime example of it. We had him for 5 seasons, never signed a player to understudy and eventually replace him. Never tried bringing an academy player thu to replace him. Only a moment of inspiration from Jol gave us a glimpse at what Dembélé truly could have been and we lost him. Then the "fix"  to that problem was finally found this past summer in a 34 year old Parker. That's turned out swimmingly.

This kind of thing is indicative of the decline we've experience since 2008. And to have a decline you've got to have a starting point that's higher than where you are. You might have realized this if you weren't so busy trying to find insults to throw my way.

You should probably hop down off that "You're American, so you must only be in it for the American players" high horse. It's become a crutch for some of you. I've had faith that you could be more creative than that - starting to believe the faith may have been misplaced though.

You chose the period from 2008 to support your contention that the club has declined under Alistair Mackintosh. The evidence does not support that.

I did not assume that you contended that we didn't have good or even great seasons. I am arguing that it does not make sense to call it a period of decline when we it included two of our best ever seasons and a European cup final.

Of course we should have invested in the first team, particularly after the final and also after the loss of Dembele and Dempsey. Points about the funding of transfers should be addressed at the owners.

Now you throw in another bizarre claims that contradicts the facts: `We never properly invested in our squad or our academy'. This is one of the great improvements in the club. We have brought in some of the best young talent around and some of the best coaches and our u18s and u21s have been at the top of the leagues for several seasons now.

As for my `two thoughts', they were clearly wind ups. I will slather such things in emoticons in future.

And so it descends to the anti-American libel. Great

[Forever Fulham]

Toodles, Apprentice's points are valid.  The Academy is second to none, and it has gotten better since '08.  That was under AM's watch.  And the club did reach its zenith during the AM years.  In hindsight, I suspect the real culprit was MAF who likely planned to sell years before it occurred, and started ratcheting down the money supply for player personnel when Hughes was manager.  The club was standing on the edge, ready to ascend to top 10 table status, but they didn't replenish the stocks.  The watershed moment?  Debatable.  But I think it was the year before Dempsey and Dembele and Murphy left.

We never properly invested in our squad or our academy when we should have during that time to backfill positions as the players from those seasons you mention aged or priced themselves out of the squad.

I never contended that we didn't have good or even great seasons. You assumed that I did. 

Responding to your two thoughts: 1. I never followed any other PL club. Only Fulham. 2. You are right that most of my time coincides with Dempsey's presence within the club. It also coincides with Murph's. The slow decline I'm speaking of has nothing to do with losing Dempsey but, we can look at Murphy as a prime example of it. We had him for 5 seasons, never signed a player to understudy and eventually replace him. Never tried bringing an academy player thu to replace him. Only a moment of inspiration from Jol gave us a glimpse at what Dembélé truly could have been and we lost him. Then the "fix"  to that problem was finally found this past summer in a 34 year old Parker. That's turned out swimmingly.

This kind of thing is indicative of the decline we've experience since 2008. And to have a decline you've got to have a starting point that's higher than where you are. You might have realized this if you weren't so busy trying to find insults to throw my way.

You should probably hop down off that "You're American, so you must only be in it for the American players" high horse. It's become a crutch for some of you. I've had faith that you could be more creative than that - starting to believe the faith may have been misplaced though.

You chose the period from 2008 to support your contention that the club has declined under Alistair Mackintosh. The evidence does not support that.

I did not assume that you contended that we didn't have good or even great seasons. I am arguing that it does not make sense to call it a period of decline when we it included two of our best ever seasons and a European cup final.

Of course we should have invested in the first team, particularly after the final and also after the loss of Dembele and Dempsey. Points about the funding of transfers should be addressed at the owners.

Now you throw in another bizarre claims that contradicts the facts: `We never properly invested in our squad or our academy'. This is one of the great improvements in the club. We have brought in some of the best young talent around and some of the best coaches and our u18s and u21s have been at the top of the leagues for several seasons now.

As for my `two thoughts', they were clearly wind ups. I will slather such things in emoticons in future.

And so it descends to the anti-American libel. Great

[nose]

our recent purchasing policy, i.e. from the day jol arrived to now has been a joke and if it were equated to the banking world would be under severe investigation, ruiz and berba, and now mitroglu.... none of these have made a genuine positive contributiom and the last is nothing short of a discgrace. to manage to sign an injured payer when we need fit players ready for the fight....  it is a shameful disgrace.

we put our trust in the management and they have let us down big time.... with £12 we could have got others, eagre to have a chance and show what they could do. In the end AM is responsible, not adequately replacing roy, not getting shot of jol much sooner..... and so on and so forth... the list is really very depressing and its time for a big change at the ceo board level.... i wish khan spent a little more time with the team... maf used to 'assist' with roy's pre match pep talks and he always said itt helpped lighten the mood and inspire the team... we could do with that now!