Scapegoats....

[Sting of the North]

Sorry statto they are cheap tricks in  argument which are both irritating and transparent. Your spelling is excellent though !!

Wasn't his point valid though, regardless of whether you liked his way of presenting it or not?

[colinwhite]

i agree with him to an extent ,but dont think we can just assume that its TK s hobby and as such proves that his dad doesnt really have the best interests of the club at heart. I do see your point though Statto. I hope they are going to improve and believe they will learn from this season.

[Fulham1959]

"True love travels on a gravel road"

(Percy Sledge, Elvis Presley, others)

[ALG01]

Let us be clear, most people IMO want the Khan's out per se.
BUT
TK only remains in situ because his dad is owner. Until that is rectified the extreme critical comments will in=evitably going to continue.

Woops typo big time
Shud say do not want the Khan's out per se.

[The Rational Fan]

It could be a hell-of-a lot worse.

I personally think everyone agrees on the facts that "The new recruits haven't gone well" and while our DOF is great at getting money for recruitment he is not very good at spending it. I think we all realise that SK (under the DOF guidance) has paid £22m for a guy that's place in any EPL first XI depends on injuries and his form which is also poor at the moment (not what you expect for his price).

The debate therefore has fallen into two camps "It could be a hell-of-a lot better with another DOF" or "It could be a hell-of-a lot worse with another DOF". To even simplify it further the two camps could be summarised by "It could be a hell-of-a lot better with DOF that has footballing brain" or "It could be a hell-of-a lot worse with DOF that no access to new equity to buy players".

I think analogies help people see the other perspective and i think all the "it could be worse camp" see that £22m+ can be spent better than Anguissa, but it should be equally obvious that a DOF without any money for transfers and to pay wages is far worse off. I think people may find like those that said "Slav out", the alternative is not always better.

I would also point out that while Marselle were happy to let Anguissa go, the main reason the price got so high is other clubs were bidding on him pushing the price up and up (which is rumoured to be Southampton). So, if you want use the price of Anguissa as proof we had the most stupid DOF, then ok that's a great argument; but realise he is still only marginally more stupid than some other EPL clubs team of experts trying to buy him too.

And, if we sack TK no one would be less surprised than me if "our recruitment team" still isn't as good as the "marginally less stupid than TK recruitment team", only difference is they won't be as getting more money every time that mess up.

FFC best chance of greatness is Tony Khan becomes a football genius, which could occur if he finds the right advisor to whisper players to buy in his hear,  like may have occurred with the Mitrovoic signing.

[Penfold]

It could be a hell-of-a lot worse.

I personally think everyone agrees on the facts that "The new recruits haven't gone well" and while our DOF is great at getting money for recruitment he is not very good at spending it. I think we all realise that SK (under the DOF guidance) has paid £22m for a guy that's place in any EPL first XI depends on injuries and his form which is also poor at the moment (not what you expect for his price).

The debate therefore has fallen into two camps "It could be a hell-of-a lot better with another DOF" or "It could be a hell-of-a lot worse with another DOF". To even simplify it further the two camps could be summarised by "It could be a hell-of-a lot better with DOF that has footballing brain" or "It could be a hell-of-a lot worse with DOF that no access to new equity to buy players".

I think analogies help people see the other perspective and i think all the "it could be worse camp" see that £22m+ can be spent better than Anguissa, but it should be equally obvious that a DOF without any money for transfers and to pay wages is far worse off. I think people may find like those that said "Slav out", the alternative is not always better.

I would also point out that while Marselle were happy to let Anguissa go, the main reason the price got so high is other clubs were bidding on him pushing the price up and up (which is rumoured to be Southampton). So, if you want use the price of Anguissa as proof we had the most stupid DOF, then ok that's a great argument; but realise he is still only marginally more stupid than some other EPL clubs team of experts trying to buy him too.

And, if we sack TK no one would be less surprised than me if "our recruitment team" still isn't as good as the "marginally less stupid than TK recruitment team", only difference is they won't be as getting more money every time that mess up.

FFC best chance of greatness is Tony Khan becomes a football genius, which could occur if he finds the right advisor to whisper players to buy in his hear,  like may have occurred with the Mitrovoic signing.

The advisor who wanted Mitrovic was Jokanovic

[Statto]

"It could be a hell-of-a lot worse with DOF that no access to new equity to buy players"

a DOF without any money for transfers and to pay wages is far worse off

they won't be as getting more money every time that mess up

Despite Colinwhite and I being rude to each other further up this thread, I think, as you seem to as well, that we largely agree on most aspects of the debate about our chairman

The specific point on which I disagreed with Colinwhite is the idea that Shahid Khan will only sustain his current level of economic support for the club on the condition his son remains DoF

The only other poster I've seen advance this view is you - in your case over about a month in numerous posts on lots of different threads

However, I'm yet to hear any evidence or reasoning for this view

It doesn't appear to be supported by any facts or evidence - you can't read Khan's mind - just pure conjecture

And it's not based on any logical reasoning either. Why would Khan perpuate a situation that undermines the success of FFC, decreases the value of his investment, harms his popularity and professional reputation, wastes his money, and exposes his beloved son to the public humiliation and abuse brought by his inevitable failure in the DoF role?

I cannot see why Shahid Khan, if he's a rational individual seeking to support the best interests of FFC and his son, would persist with TK in the DoF role (or, if he removes him, be any less willing to support a new DOF). Please explain, what I am I missing?

[The Rational Fan]

"It could be a hell-of-a lot worse with DOF that no access to new equity to buy players"

a DOF without any money for transfers and to pay wages is far worse off

they won't be as getting more money every time that mess up

Despite Colinwhite and I being rude to each other further up this thread, I think, as you seem to as well, that we largely agree on most aspects of the debate about our chairman
The specific point on which I disagreed with Colinwhite is the idea that Shahid Khan will only sustain his current level of economic support for the club on the condition his son remains DoF

The only other poster I've seen advance this view is you - in your case over about a month in numerous posts on lots of different threads

However, I'm yet to hear any evidence or reasoning for this view


It doesn't appear to be supported by any facts or evidence - you can't read Khan's mind - just pure conjecture

And it's not based on any logical reasoning either. Why would Khan perpuate a situation that undermines the success of FFC, decreases the value of his investment, harms his popularity and professional reputation, wastes his money, and exposes his beloved son to the public humiliation and abuse brought by his inevitable failure in the DoF role?

I cannot see why Shahid Khan, if he's a rational individual seeking to support the best interests of FFC and his son, would persist with TK in the DoF role (or, if he removes him, be any less willing to support a new DOF). Please explain, what I am I missing?

You are right that my viewpoint is not supported by any real facts or evidence about Shadid Khan, so is just pure conjecture. But, your opinion is conjecture and you also cannot read his mind, so we are left with what is we do know and what is logical.

What we know is i) Tony Khan was never the most qualified person for the job, but Shadid Khan gave the job to him anyway indicating to me this is an expensive hobby for his son; ii) if FFC is a financial investment "the act of putting into something to make a profit or dividend", then it is an investment that has never delivered one pence of profit in the past (and my opinion never will unless you sell something), so more likely it is a hobby or at least I hope its a hobby.

The simple truth is whatever the reason that Shadid Khan is giving equity to the Fulham DoF for players, once that reason disappears he will stop giving money to the Fulham DOF. If the reason is that "the current DoF is his son" or "the current DoF has convinced him that its great idea to pump money in the team", then removing the current DoF may spell disaster.

Any reason is conjecture, but i say FFC fans that think that Shadid Khan's support of a "DoF that is not his son" would be as good is massive conjecture. If you don't believe Shadid Khan wouldn't preference his son (by giving him more equity for transfer budget as DoF), then please explain how TK got the job as DoF in the first place.

The assumption that FFC fans can effectively sack the owner son and get the same level of support from the owner is a wild assumption, and in my opinion 'without me having any evidence" is probably a wrong assumption.

Importantly, if we can keep Tony Khan as DoF but find him the right advisor to whisper in his ear, we can get the best of both worlds (a DoF with SK's money and some football experts wisdom).

[RaySmith]

I think too much emphasis is made of TK being DOF, and the stats  based approach to transfers which he  supposedly heads, when our main problems stem from coming up with so many loanees in the squad, and one important player, Ferdinand,  keen to leave, though Christie had  been acquired to cover this position.

So we brought in too many players to be integrated into the team in such a short time, and these were often the wrong players. But we did bring in needed cb's - Mawson, and Chambers, though one was still recovering from injury - an error here, when this has happened to us  before, you would think, but motivated by urgency to fill this position with Prem quality presumably.

So we bought a lot of players, whom it was hard to fit into the team, and  weren't good enough, or injured. But how much was this TK's fault, when there was an urgency to bring in players in a short time, just to put a Prem quality team out.

Obviously, the best thing is if you come up with your Championship  squad just needing  two or three quality additions to compete  the Prem, but this wasn't the case with us - or wasn't thought to be , after the loans had returned, and Targett wasn't bought because of Saints' putting up the price though Mitro was bought, and Cairney and Sess retained.

Slavisa obviously didn't think the  team was good enough, because otherwise he might have integrated the new players gradually, though he chose not to play Mawson when he was fit, an Chambers was found wanting at cb, so we kept playing Odoi and Ream in this position, and are still playing them- though now Nordtveit is doing qite well, with Odoi gnerally doing well, though with errors, like sll our defenders, at rb. They have performed heroically, but we lack defensive Prem quality across the back four.

So I don't think it's right  lay all he blame at TK's  door, when  he presumably is just the head of a team involved in scouting and transfers, but he should get someone high profile in the game  appointed to work with him on transfers, and make sure everyone knows about this

[colinwhite]

Your doing it again Statto .My point wasnt that Mr Khan will no longer supply the funds if his son is not in charge of transfers . I was simply making the point that it would be worth considering the idea that it might be a possibillity, and was particularly directed  as an obsevation to the fans crying for TKs  head. There is a distinct difference between my observation and how you simplify it !!

[Statto]

Your doing it again Statto .My point wasnt that Mr Khan will no longer supply the funds if his son is not in charge of transfers .

Your exact words were "Seems niave to me to assume that the spending will continue if TK was to get the boot."

Sorry if I've misinterpreted but isn't that pretty unequivocal?

[colinwhite]

ok,sorry if that wasnt clear. I was really pointing out to those who refer to TK as naive and unfit for the job  and that he should be  out , that that was also a bit naive,given the circumstances and thus be careful what they wish for. No bad feelings from me either way Statto.

[toshes mate]

TK has never been my hero or anti-hero and so I really don't understand the OP's point of view that he is, was an easy target, and a naive one at that.  The OP is being naive in thinking you can have a good business built around bad ideas, inadequate staffing, and relationships built on anything but trust, respect and ability, not things you regularly find in families because bond and blood rule over everything else..... mostly

[Statto]

ok,sorry if that wasnt clear. I was really pointing out to those who refer to TK as naive and unfit for the job  and that he should be  out , that that was also a bit naive,given the circumstances and thus be careful what they wish for. No bad feelings from me either way Statto.

Fair enough, I generally agree with most of your posts anyway
Coyw

[colinwhite]

Toshes mate  where do you get "thinking you can have a good business model built around bad ideas". agree thats naive but it certainly didnt come from me. getting a bit fed up with being quoted for things neither stated ,posted or thought.

[toshes mate]

Toshes mate  where do you get "thinking you can have a good business model built around bad ideas". agree thats naive but it certainly didnt come from me. getting a bit fed up with being quoted for things neither stated ,posted or thought.

It is my way of saying that if there is one fault in a structure (e.g. bad nepotism, inadequate ability, poor judgement) the structure will fail as stresses increase.  When you have multiple faults because of the knock on effect of any other fault then the structure will suffer a disastrous collapse rather than creaking and sighing. The Club has had many chances to rectify the sole initial fault - nepotism without control.   

[Twig]

If we agree that Shad K has the interests of the club at heart, and I think most of us do, then eventually he should decide to move his son out of the DoF role (however reluctantly).  Having made such a significant change of approach then I think we could reasonably assume he would continue to make transfer funds available. Otherwise why bother to go through all the personal plain of reassigning his son into a different role?

[colinwhite]

i hope so .

[Statto]

If you don't believe Shadid Khan wouldn't preference his son (by giving him more equity for transfer budget as DoF), then please explain how TK got the job as DoF in the first place.

My guess, and surely most would agree what was most likely, is Shahid Khan thought Tony could be successful in the DoF role.

I accept Shahid may have had doubts, and have given Tony the benefit of the doubt, but I think it very unlikely he expected Tony to waste £100m, get relegated and undo four years' hard work, and end up on the receiving end of Twitter abuse, fans' protest banners, etc.

You seem to be suggesting that Shahid knew Tony would be this poor and "preferenced his son" by giving him the job anyway. I think that highly unlikely, because as I said above, ultimately that outcome has been harmful not only to Fulham, but also to Tony.

[Sting of the North]

If we agree that Shad K has the interests of the club at heart, and I think most of us do, then eventually he should decide to move his son out of the DoF role (however reluctantly).  Having made such a significant change of approach then I think we could reasonably assume he would continue to make transfer funds available. Otherwise why bother to go through all the personal plain of reassigning his son into a different role?

I do agree that SK likely has the best interest of the club at heart, but that surely only translates to him removing TK under the assumption that SK agrees that TK is the (or one of the) problem(s). I agree however that if he has (and will continue to have) our best at heart, then removing TK would not mean that funds are not made available.

For what it's worth, I believe that we would likely be better off without TK as DoF (of course assuming we get a decent replacement), but the important part is of course what SK thinks. I wouldn't be surprised if SK agrees, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't.