Worst ownership in my 30+ years of FFC support

[RPhillips]

I share your frustration and anger but Clay and Bulstrode were far worse owners because they wanted to destroy our club.

I personally feel Khan WILL destroy us & worryingly I think that's his intention. I don't know if it's the land he wants but a top businessman, which he is, doesn't make the mistakes he has, not unless he wants to! Every important decision he's made has been the wrong one, (for the fans/club).

He's never explained why he bought us. It certainly wasn't to make money & he would have known he wasnt going to make make money running a mid/small sized premier league club.

Purely my opinion & I have no inside knowledge but I don't know what he's doing with us but I certainly don't trust him.

Reason that he bought us????   London NFL FRANCHISE....Absolutely no other reason...but the good news is we will be sold when the franchise is located at Spurs      http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/boris-johnson-has-high-hopes-that-tottenham-will-host-nfl-franchise-a2954096.html

First, an NFL franchise in London ain't gonna happen. Second, if Hell does freeze over and London is granted a franchise, Stan Kroencke -- Arsenal's majority shareholder -- will get it, not Shad. Kroencke has a good ownership track record with the NFL Rams and NHL Colorado franchises and is respected by his fellow owners, while Shad's ownership of the Jacksonville NFL franchise -- and now, FFC -- has been derided as being amateurish, and Shad has few admirers among his fellow owners (Kroencke does not like Shad, going back to the sale of the Rams, and has lobbied against Shad among the owners ever since).

[Arthur]

Why have we got Khan? Because MAF chose to sell him the Club. MAF didn't have to let the Club go to an owner whose business empire is based on the other side of the Atlantic; no one forced him to sell to someone with no understanding of football.

But he did.

If MAF had offers from parties better placed to run this Club and yet chose to sell to Khan, can it be for any other reason than that our current owner offered him the most dosh? In which case, would MAF's decision not be the root cause of our current problems?

If MAF had no other suitors, is it not a case, for the Club, of 'beggars can't be choosers'?

However poor Khan's ownership has been, the only argument I have seen that our Chairman is wilfully letting down the Club is that he does afford it a fair share of his time. This is pure speculation. We all know that none of us knows whether or not this is true. Whatever other mistakes he has made appear to have been made earnestly in trying to do what is best for the Club.

We knew from the outset who we were getting: a successful businessman, but a rookie football man. Had Khan led us into believing his credentials were other than this, he would deserve to be criticised for not being more adept.

But he didn't.

[Oakeshott]

"Whatever other mistakes he has made appear to have been made earnestly in trying to do what is best for the Club"

Very probably, however in the words of the old aphorism the way to hell is paved with good intentions.

It is the effectiveness or otherwise of actions, rather than their intentions, that count.

[Twig]

No argument there.  I just don't subscribe to all of the questioning of his motives.  He's spent money, brought in players & made changes to staff, all of which are the actions of someone trying to fix the problem.  If he wanted to destroy the club he could have just stood pat because we were well on our way.

Prior to sacking Kit, it appeared the club had arrested the slide and started to turn our fortunes around.  While this managerial search isn't inspiring much (if any) confidence, there is still a chance they make a selection that successfully fits into their strategy and the improvement continues.  Hopefully that will be the case.

Sorry Ag but you are one of several who keep asserting that Khan has spent money.  Aside from the cost of purchase he has spent very little.  His transfer dealings are not heavily in the black, he made a number of employees redundant thereby cutting the wage bill, he shed high earning players replacing them with lower waged players.  I am not saying whether these actions were right or wrong but please don't perpetuate the myth that this guy is some sort of benevolent investor.

As to his motives for buying the club, well who knows, because he has never detailed them despite having been asked in interviews.

Finally, to those who say he has been unlucky - nonsense he calls the shots and has to answer for those calls.  I even saw one poster claim that it was unlucky that he was "sold the club" (no, he chose to buy it) when it had suffered underinvestment! Dear god, I am sure the man has heard of due diligence and if he got that wrong it was not bad luck.  

[bobbo]

Nothing constructive in this comment but, we've been sliding down since MAF 'S last couple of years and nobody seems competent enough to stop it. I'm am so much more upset now with what's happening to our club than I ever was through those long seasons through the late sixties and early seventies.Somebody must be able to stop the rot after all the money is there, so it's pointing to middle management.

[Adi-ffc]

Khan's mistakes are really beginning to stack up now, and I feel he deserves quite a bit of criticism, even if he might mean well for the club.

Meulensteen to start with, who wasn't given enough time.
The shocking debacle of Magath, which sounded like quite a unilateral decision on Khan's part.
Not firing Kit after the Norwich game at the end of last season.
Hiring Rigg.
His continued absence, and the appointment of a board that doesn't know it's xxxx from its elbow.

He has been a shambles so far.

If Rigg isn't sacked soon, we are in a relegation battle (that we'll probably survive, but still...). No one good will come and work for him now, the word is out.

[Ag]

No argument there.  I just don't subscribe to all of the questioning of his motives.  He's spent money, brought in players & made changes to staff, all of which are the actions of someone trying to fix the problem.  If he wanted to destroy the club he could have just stood pat because we were well on our way.

Prior to sacking Kit, it appeared the club had arrested the slide and started to turn our fortunes around.  While this managerial search isn't inspiring much (if any) confidence, there is still a chance they make a selection that successfully fits into their strategy and the improvement continues.  Hopefully that will be the case.

Sorry Ag but you are one of several who keep asserting that Khan has spent money.  Aside from the cost of purchase he has spent very little.  His transfer dealings are not heavily in the black, he made a number of employees redundant thereby cutting the wage bill, he shed high earning players replacing them with lower waged players.  I am not saying whether these actions were right or wrong but please don't perpetuate the myth that this guy is some sort of benevolent investor.

As to his motives for buying the club, well who knows, because he has never detailed them despite having been asked in interviews.

Finally, to those who say he has been unlucky - nonsense he calls the shots and has to answer for those calls.  I even saw one poster claim that it was unlucky that he was "sold the club" (no, he chose to buy it) when it had suffered underinvestment! Dear god, I am sure the man has heard of due diligence and if he got that wrong it was not bad luck.  

Where did I say he was a benevolent investor?  I simply said he'd spent money and taken actions that would suggest he's trying to fix the problem as opposed to the assertions that he's out to destroy the club.  I never affixed a value to that spending nor did I pass any judgment on its sufficiency.  

I know MJG has done some detailed reporting of the financials in the past.  There's also the announcement earlier this year of planned upgrades to Motspur Park and the Academy.  These would suggest some level of further investment.  However, if you have some evidence to disprove this "myth" feel free to share with the rest of us.

As for his motives, you're correct, he hasn't been very clear other than saying he would be a custodian to the club and mentioning the cross promotional opportunities.  With most wealthy sports owners there's an element of vanity/status symbol so I would expect that was a motivating factor as well, though he wouldn't state that in interviews, obviously.

Your last paragraph doesn't pertain to me, but I said after he bought the club that his initial actions (or lack thereof) made it appear he hadn't done proper due diligence.  We were fortunate to avoid a relegation battle the season before he bought us and were strong candidates for the drop in his first year without significant investment in the squad and a change at manager.

[Arthur]

"Whatever other mistakes he has made appear to have been made earnestly in trying to do what is best for the Club"

Very probably, however in the words of the old aphorism the way to hell is paved with good intentions.

It is the effectiveness or otherwise of actions, rather than their intentions, that count.

It counts if the impact of Khan's chairmanship is the topic.

My previous post, however, is about application, not outcome.

[Twig]

No argument there.  I just don't subscribe to all of the questioning of his motives.  He's spent money, brought in players & made changes to staff, all of which are the actions of someone trying to fix the problem.  If he wanted to destroy the club he could have just stood pat because we were well on our way.

Prior to sacking Kit, it appeared the club had arrested the slide and started to turn our fortunes around.  While this managerial search isn't inspiring much (if any) confidence, there is still a chance they make a selection that successfully fits into their strategy and the improvement continues.  Hopefully that will be the case.

Sorry Ag but you are one of several who keep asserting that Khan has spent money.  Aside from the cost of purchase he has spent very little.  His transfer dealings are not heavily in the black, he made a number of employees redundant thereby cutting the wage bill, he shed high earning players replacing them with lower waged players.  I am not saying whether these actions were right or wrong but please don't perpetuate the myth that this guy is some sort of benevolent investor.

As to his motives for buying the club, well who knows, because he has never detailed them despite having been asked in interviews.

Finally, to those who say he has been unlucky - nonsense he calls the shots and has to answer for those calls.  I even saw one poster claim that it was unlucky that he was "sold the club" (no, he chose to buy it) when it had suffered underinvestment! Dear god, I am sure the man has heard of due diligence and if he got that wrong it was not bad luck. 

Where did I say he was a benevolent investor?  I simply said he'd spent money and taken actions that would suggest he's trying to fix the problem as opposed to the assertions that he's out to destroy the club.  I never affixed a value to that spending nor did I pass any judgment on its sufficiency. 

I know MJG has done some detailed reporting of the financials in the past.  There's also the announcement earlier this year of planned upgrades to Motspur Park and the Academy.  These would suggest some level of further investment.  However, if you have some evidence to disprove this "myth" feel free to share with the rest of us.

As for his motives, you're correct, he hasn't been very clear other than saying he would be a custodian to the club and mentioning the cross promotional opportunities.  With most wealthy sports owners there's an element of vanity/status symbol so I would expect that was a motivating factor as well, though he wouldn't state that in interviews, obviously.

Your last paragraph doesn't pertain to me, but I said after he bought the club that his initial actions (or lack thereof) made it appear he hadn't done proper due diligence.  We were fortunate to avoid a relegation battle the season before he bought us and were strong candidates for the drop in his first year without significant investment in the squad and a change at manager.

My last para was in response to others' posts, too lazy to start another post!
You said "he's spent money", whilst of course that is very obviously true, my point was that his net spend is very modest indeed (he has instigated cost reduction programmes).  Correct, you didn't say he had been a benevolent investor and that is why I didn't use quotes.  However you used his alleged expenditure to justify your view that his motives are not in question, which I disagree with.

No need for the sarcasm regards his capital expenditure plans.  I admit to being sceptical regards the Riverside devpt and admit I have no idea as to whether the planned upgrading facilities to our training facilities will go ahead, or whether it is a "myth" so I can't share with the royal you (plural). Clearly you expect the latter to proceed, fine I look forward to it.

[Ag]

My last para was in response to others' posts, too lazy to start another post!
You said "he's spent money", whilst of course that is very obviously true, my point was that his net spend is very modest indeed (he has instigated cost reduction programmes).  Correct, you didn't say he had been a benevolent investor and that is why I didn't use quotes.  However you used his alleged expenditure to justify your view that his motives are not in question, which I disagree with.

No need for the sarcasm regards his capital expenditure plans.  I admit to being sceptical regards the Riverside devpt and admit I have no idea as to whether the planned upgrading facilities to our training facilities will go ahead, or whether it is a "myth" so I can't share with the royal you (plural). Clearly you expect the latter to proceed, fine I look forward to it.

Regarding the sarcasm, fair enough.  I didn't appreciate being accused of "perpetuating a myth" and having my statement miscategorized.  There was an element of sincerity in it though, as I'm as frustrated with the lack of information as everyone else.  So if anyone has something tangible that sheds light on the situation, I welcome reading it.

I used his alleged expenditure as a part of justifying my view that his motives aren't questionable.  There are a number of other factors that lead me to that conclusion.  However, as others have stated, he can ultimately turn out to be a crap owner despite having the best of intentions.

[RaySmith]

Well, Khan doesn't know anything about football, so what can he do? except take advice from others, and  come up with the money.

[SG]

He may mean well and be a decent man but he HAS screwed up, there can be no argument on that fact!

He bought a business and just about every thing that's happened since has gone wrong so who else is to blame?

There's plenty of people who have failed the club but the buck stops with Khan who has employed failure after failure.

And that's a fact too!

I have to say that I feel your absolutely spot on.

I agree with you that the buck stops with Khan. If I had spent the sums he has, I would clear out the top team and start again, starting with Rigg and Macintosh going. Fresh start, new invigorated board and management rather than the stale, failure ridden team that currently heads this club. We run our own business and would not have tolerated this level of failure for this long in any of our senior management teams. Khan does not need to know that much about a specific industry to recognise that the appointments he has made are failing and that he needs to act to change things.

[Chutney]

He may mean well and be a decent man but he HAS screwed up, there can be no argument on that fact!

He bought a business and just about every thing that's happened since has gone wrong so who else is to blame?

There's plenty of people who have failed the club but the buck stops with Khan who has employed failure after failure.

And that's a fact too!

I have to say that I feel your absolutely spot on.

I agree with you that the buck stops with Khan. If I had spent the sums he has, I would clear out the top team and start again, starting with Rigg and Macintosh going. Fresh start, new invigorated board and management rather than the stale, failure ridden team that currently heads this club. We run our own business and would not have tolerated this level of failure for this long in any of our senior management teams. Khan does not need to know that much about a specific industry to recognise that the appointments he has made are failing and that he needs to act to change things.

The first thing he should of done when he took over was get rid of Ali Mack.

[Domino 1879]

He may mean well and be a decent man but he HAS screwed up, there can be no argument on that fact!

He bought a business and just about every thing that's happened since has gone wrong so who else is to blame?

There's plenty of people who have failed the club but the buck stops with Khan who has employed failure after failure.

And that's a fact too!

I have to say that I feel your absolutely spot on.

I agree with you that the buck stops with Khan. If I had spent the sums he has, I would clear out the top team and start again, starting with Rigg and Macintosh going. Fresh start, new invigorated board and management rather than the stale, failure ridden team that currently heads this club. We run our own business and would not have tolerated this level of failure for this long in any of our senior management teams. Khan does not need to know that much about a specific industry to recognise that the appointments he has made are failing and that he needs to act to change things.

The first thing he should of done when he took over was get rid of Ali Mack.

Unfortunately the first thing he did was get rid of everyone other than AM.  Sacking Board members by Email............no direct dialogue at all............was and is very poor judgement imo..  That was his first mistake. 
Bringing in Jags manager (who was equally clueless of association Football) into FFC was his second big mistake.

As others have commented, it is hard to understand why he bought the club in the first place - surely he would have carried out the necessary due diligence to understand the financial obligations/penalties involved?
Personally I have tried to give the guy the benefit of doubt but I think he has realised that this 'experiment' is not working out.  His heart lies with the Jags.  FFC is just a side show and I suspect he will be looking for an exit strategy soon - if not already.

The problem is of course that the value of the club will have plummetted since he bought it.  And, lets be honest, the club is in such a pickle that theres not going to be a queue of suitors at the door.  So Mr Khan has a predicament.  Does he hang on in and hope that good times come back - and that will require investment - or does he cut his losses and sell.

If its the latter perhaps we can hope to get a consortium together comprised of Fulham fans..................well we can but dream.

[Logicalman]

He may mean well and be a decent man but he HAS screwed up, there can be no argument on that fact!

He bought a business and just about every thing that's happened since has gone wrong so who else is to blame?

There's plenty of people who have failed the club but the buck stops with Khan who has employed failure after failure.

And that's a fact too!

Indeed. As I said on another thread, the facts speak for themselves. He relegated an established top flight club in his first season in charge. Five other clubs have come down with us since then and we're the worst off. Fact ;)

Sorry, totally disagree with this statement. We were on our way down from the lack of investment for the preceding 2 years, it's pretty difficult to destroy "an established top flight club" in just one season, unless there are drastic managerial and team personnel changes. Many, many people on here were shouting for Jol to be fired, are you saying we should have kept him? Or what else did he do, or not do, that was done in the 2 years prior to his arrival then that caused him to relegate " an established top flight club in his first season in charge"?

[Arthur]

...the facts speak for themselves. He relegated an established top flight club in his first season in charge.

...it's pretty difficult to destroy "an established top flight club" in just one season, unless there are drastic managerial and team personnel changes...

I agree, Logicalman.

Despite what Statto says, his is one fact that definitely doesn't 'speak for itself' - there's a context to it, without a doubt.

When Khan took over, he actually did very little with the team at first. He didn't change the manager; he didn't bring lots of new players into the squad; he didn't dispense with those who were already here. In short, he allowed matters to remain much the same as he found them. On the basis of this, it is, as you point out, almost inconceivable that a secure PL club would be instantly relegated. By far the most compelling interpretation of the fact that we lost nine of the first thirteen matches is that our new Chairman inherited a first-team squad whose status for the following season was anything but assured.

The implication that Khan 'tried to fix what wasn't broken' and, in doing so, was the cause of our being relegated simply doesn't stack up.

[Logicalman]

...the facts speak for themselves. He relegated an established top flight club in his first season in charge.

...it's pretty difficult to destroy "an established top flight club" in just one season, unless there are drastic managerial and team personnel changes...

I agree, Logicalman.

Despite what Statto says, his is one fact that definitely doesn't 'speak for itself' - there's a context to it, without a doubt.

When Khan took over, he actually did very little with the team at first. He didn't change the manager; he didn't bring lots of new players into the squad; he didn't dispense with those who were already here. In short, he allowed matters to remain much the same as he found them. On the basis of this, it is, as you point out, almost inconceivable that a secure PL club would be instantly relegated. By far the most compelling interpretation of the fact that we lost nine of the first thirteen matches is that our new Chairman inherited a first-team squad whose status for the following season was anything but assured.

The implication that Khan 'tried to fix what wasn't broken' and, in doing so, was the cause of our being relegated simply doesn't stack up.

Thanks, I just cannot understand why some people want to hate the fact Khan is in charge of the club. It's inconceivable to me that as a fan of Fulham, there could be so much hatred towards one man that actual lies have to be made up, that cannot be supported, just spouted.

Khan has made many mistakes, and that includes the soundbites that seem to go down so well in the US, but are taken as gospel in the UK. Then again, didn't MaF say we were going to be the "Manchester United of the South"?, and after 15 years that never materialized either, so we have to accept that so much of it is press talk (as in taling for the press) whether or not there is a strong conviction behind it.

As I have always said, if one doesn't like the owner they can always buy them out.

[WORTHINGFULHAM]

I used to be thankful we had Rigg but now I think he might be the cause of our troubles. Khan has put his trust and belief that Rigg will get the job done but to be honest I think Rigg doesn't have a clue. Rigg I believe, wants to be "THE" man, the guy that pulls the strings , the guy that holds the cards but I don't think he warrants his position with his credentials. Khan is over to see what the hell is going on, or isn't going on as the case my be, don't blame khan for this mess, I think its Rigg.

[bill taylors apprentice]

...the facts speak for themselves. He relegated an established top flight club in his first season in charge.

...it's pretty difficult to destroy "an established top flight club" in just one season, unless there are drastic managerial and team personnel changes...

I agree, Logicalman.

Despite what Statto says, his is one fact that definitely doesn't 'speak for itself' - there's a context to it, without a doubt.

When Khan took over, he actually did very little with the team at first. He didn't change the manager; he didn't bring lots of new players into the squad; he didn't dispense with those who were already here. In short, he allowed matters to remain much the same as he found them. On the basis of this, it is, as you point out, almost inconceivable that a secure PL club would be instantly relegated. By far the most compelling interpretation of the fact that we lost nine of the first thirteen matches is that our new Chairman inherited a first-team squad whose status for the following season was anything but assured.

The implication that Khan 'tried to fix what wasn't broken' and, in doing so, was the cause of our being relegated simply doesn't stack up.

You can interpret it how you like but I choose to see it differently.

Firstly, plenty of secure PL clubs have been relegated but once you have been its a different ball game.

You said it yourself, "he actually did very little with the first team" and "he allowed matters to remain much the same"
And there lies the problem!
He didn't see or have anyone close to tell him what needed fixing

I will use the house buying analogy again, the previous owner had a tidy,solid property for sale that needed some work doing to improve it.
Ignore the leak in the roof and the faulty electrics and its going to cause big problems.

What he did do, was get rid of the previous board and advisors and replaced them all with his son and a successful beer salesman who only new about Yankee sport.

You and illogical man are missing the point. Its not a case of trying to fix what wasn't broken or not!
He ignored the leak in the roof and was caught sitting on the bog when the roof caved in! 

[Arthur]

You can interpret it how you like but I choose to see it differently.

I will use the house buying analogy again, the previous owner had a tidy,solid property for sale that needed some work doing to improve it.
Ignore the leak in the roof and the faulty electrics and its going to cause big problems.

I would say this is more akin to being in Khan's shoes when he took over:

Wang Liqin
Chen Shuai
Ma Jike
Hao Lin
Zhang Qi
Ma Yue

You've become the benefactor to a team of players who ended this year just below midway in the Chinese national table tennis club championships. Who, if anybody, should be replaced for next year? And who is/are the right players to bring in? The Club secretary (in whom you hope you can trust because of his role in advising the previous benefactor) is convinced that if Liu Tao can be persuaded to join the group to replace Ma Jike, the team will be stronger than before. It's your call what to do next.

An analogy is meant to be a comparison between things that have similar features (for example, blood vessels in your body and the London Underground). I don't see a helpful analogy between our squad of football players and your leaking roof. A house with a leaking roof is something that is universally understood. Anybody can see that it's leaking. No specialised knowledge is required to ascertain this and the remedy (get a roofer to repair it) is just as evident.

A squad of English football players (like a group Chinese table tennis players) cannot be interpreted as easily. Our squad of 25-or-so players were not universally known (even when we were in the PL). Unless a person followed English football quite closely, he or she would have few, if any, realistic suggestions for strengthening the team, and at whose expense.

I hope you won't mind if I stick with the interpretation of Khan I already had.