Mr Kahn please step in

[The Rational Fan]

Rational Fan, I mean arguments like:

- If he loves his son he won't keep him in a position that's likely harming his mental wellbeing (see my post above)

- If he's an ethical person, he won't put his son's (or his own) personal interests above the club's (Mitch's point I think)

- If he cares about economics, he may decide removing his son is the only way of making a profit out of FFC (or at least minimising his losses)

- If he cares about his reputation and legacy, he may decide it's better for his son to gracefully slip away rather than have the family forever viewed in Europe as the guys who failed at football

...etc

So the arguments are i) TKs mental wellbeing, ii) clubs interest, iii) profitability and iv) legacy.

I think SK does care about TKs mental well being, a lot more than anyone else at FoF. I assume he thinks it's good for his son to be DoF. Most of the arguments that his job is bad for his mental health are by those trying to bully him out of the job, which is fine but those people don't care about TK more than SK.

As for in the clubs best interest, SK can most help the club by pumping as many dollars as possible into the club. The Owner SK under the direction of the DoF did the recruitment, even without TK as DoF the Khans can ruin the transfer window by not approving the spend (eg Mike Ashley). Either way (with or without TK) the Khans get recruitment advice and can accept, reject or change it.

As for profitability, i want to be in mid table premier league not making profits in league one. I want SK to spend to get players until FFP won't let him spend any more and that's a lot of loses. If you want to see a club trying to be profitability, think Sunderland.

As for his reputation and legacy, it will be best served by being involved and pouring every cent he can into the team. My experience is uninvolved owners don't lead to success, un-involved owners worry about profit before results and trophies.

[Mitch]

Rational Fan, I mean arguments like:

- If he loves his son he won't keep him in a position that's likely harming his mental wellbeing (see my post above)

- If he's an ethical person, he won't put his son's (or his own) personal interests above the club's (Mitch's point I think)

- If he cares about economics, he may decide removing his son is the only way of making a profit out of FFC (or at least minimising his losses)

- If he cares about his reputation and legacy, he may decide it's better for his son to gracefully slip away rather than have the family forever viewed in Europe as the guys who failed at football

...etc

These are all points of relevance and merit, Statto, and none of them have ready made answers known to any of us other than the Khans themselves as a family unit.  Other employees at the Club may be more socially involved with the Khans and better equipped to form opinion.  It would take a more intimate connection (perhaps a 'CK' type for example) to give any of us greater insight or at least perspective and we all know why that may never happen. 

CK did have a fairly open discussion on Twitter on some of these points months ago - he's likely deleted replies by now. His stance is that both he and Tony Khan have the expected level of experience to be doing the job they were and are, so the idea of nepotism and how that affects the football club isn't or at least wasn't on his radar. Make of that what you will!

[Sting of the North]

So the arguments are i) TKs mental wellbeing, ii) clubs interest, iii) profitability and iv) legacy.

I think SK does care about TKs mental well being, a lot more than anyone else at FoF. I assume he thinks it's good for his son to be DoF. Most of the arguments that his job is bad for his mental health are by those trying to bully him out of the job, which is fine but those people don't care about TK more than SK.

As for in the clubs best interest, SK can most help the club by pumping as many dollars as possible into the club. The Owner SK under the direction of the DoF did the recruitment, even without TK as DoF the Khans can ruin the transfer window by not approving the spend (eg Mike Ashley). Either way (with or without TK) the Khans get recruitment advice and can accept, reject or change it.

As for profitability, i want to be in mid table premier league not making profits in league one. I want SK to spend to get players until FFP won't let him spend any more and that's a lot of loses. If you want to see a club trying to be profitability, think Sunderland.

As for his reputation and legacy, it will be best served by being involved and pouring every cent he can into the team. My experience is uninvolved owners don't lead to success, un-involved owners worry about profit before results and trophies.

I believe you are missing at least the general point (as I understand it) that there doesn't need to be a contradiction between removing TK and still caring about the club and pouring money into it. The point has been raised because you constantly claim that without TK there will be less money and as such we need to have TK at the helm. While I respect your opinion that TK is needed in order for money to flow (or to have an involved owner), that is an opinion that for obvious reasons is hard to either prove or disprove. I think that one should at least acknowledge that there is no certain answer here, and that is what I believe that many has tried to get at. Since we cannot know this, maybe criticism against TK shouldn't be dismissed purely on the argument that we will inevitably be worse off without him because of SK then no longer caring.

That is my understanding of the discussion at least.

[The Rational Fan]

So the arguments are i) TKs mental wellbeing, ii) clubs interest, iii) profitability and iv) legacy.

I think SK does care about TKs mental well being, a lot more than anyone else at FoF. I assume he thinks it's good for his son to be DoF. Most of the arguments that his job is bad for his mental health are by those trying to bully him out of the job, which is fine but those people don't care about TK more than SK.

As for in the clubs best interest, SK can most help the club by pumping as many dollars as possible into the club. The Owner SK under the direction of the DoF did the recruitment, even without TK as DoF the Khans can ruin the transfer window by not approving the spend (eg Mike Ashley). Either way (with or without TK) the Khans get recruitment advice and can accept, reject or change it.

As for profitability, i want to be in mid table premier league not making profits in league one. I want SK to spend to get players until FFP won't let him spend any more and that's a lot of loses. If you want to see a club trying to be profitability, think Sunderland.

As for his reputation and legacy, it will be best served by being involved and pouring every cent he can into the team. My experience is uninvolved owners don't lead to success, un-involved owners worry about profit before results and trophies.

I believe you are missing at least the general point (as I understand it) that there doesn't need to be a contradiction between removing TK and still caring about the club and pouring money into it. The point has been raised because you constantly claim that without TK there will be less money and as such we need to have TK at the helm. While I respect your opinion that TK is needed in order for money to flow (or to have an involved owner), that is an opinion that for obvious reasons is hard to either prove or disprove. I think that one should at least acknowledge that there is no certain answer here, and that is what I believe that many has tried to get at. Since we cannot know this, maybe criticism against TK shouldn't be dismissed purely on the argument that we will inevitably be worse off without him because of SK then no longer caring.

That is my understanding of the discussion at least.

I'll admit i don't know if removing TK will decrease the money poured into the club by Shadid Khan or by Tony Khan if he becomes owner. We won't be inevitably worse off without TK at the helm, but if SK won't back the next DoF as much as he backed his son things maybe grim.

[toshes mate]

[TK] isn't a bad person ... but his weaknesses are weaknesses clear to all ... I think his advantages and disadvantages are fairly clear, but it's clear that things could be worse if he resigns from the role, especially if the Khans start demanding cash flow out of the club like Arsenal and ManUnited owners do.

Firstly comments on this thread are not about someone being a good or bad person, since that requires judgements that we all hope are strictly irrelevant to anyone's involvement at FFC.  Comments about TK are about his relevance as the DoF at FFC and his ability to perform the tasks he has given himself.  He will still be co-owner even if he steps aside from the DoF role and, as such, he can interfere with or assist in and improve upon whatever he wishes to.  He would, however, be even more exposed to criticism if he made things worse via interference.  That is a normal position for any owner.

What you have to do if you want to justify your continued patronage to TK is to prove that FFC would flourish less well without TK as DoF, and the only proof of that requires something to happen which you disapprove of.  It is a Catch22.

[The Rational Fan]

[TK] isn't a bad person ... but his weaknesses are weaknesses clear to all ... I think his advantages and disadvantages are fairly clear, but it's clear that things could be worse if he resigns from the role, especially if the Khans start demanding cash flow out of the club like Arsenal and ManUnited owners do.

Firstly comments on this thread are not about someone being a good or bad person, since that requires judgements that we all hope are strictly irrelevant to anyone's involvement at FFC.  Comments about TK are about his relevance as the DoF at FFC and his ability to perform the tasks he has given himself.  He will still be co-owner even if he steps aside from the DoF role and, as such, he can interfere with or assist in and improve upon whatever he wishes to.  He would, however, be even more exposed to criticism if he made things worse via interference.  That is a normal position for any owner.

What you have to do if you want to justify your continued patronage to TK is to prove that FFC would flourish less well without TK as DoF, and the only proof of that requires something to happen which you disapprove of.  It is a Catch22.

Yes, we are in a Catch-22, because as you said if Tony Khan is sacked he is still the co-owner and can still mess up recruitment, and you think his mistakes will be more exposed to criticism as co-owner rather DoF, but i don't think his mistake have been under exposed. The most common and only  sentence by pundits about Fulham is "Fulham spent £100m and went down, money doesn't buy success". Even if they know 15 squad are more expensive than FFC.

[toshes mate]

CK did have a fairly open discussion on Twitter on some of these points months ago - he's likely deleted replies by now. His stance is that both he and Tony Khan have the expected level of experience to be doing the job they were and are, so the idea of nepotism and how that affects the football club isn't or at least wasn't on his radar. Make of that what you will!

Of course CK also gave so called 'evidence' to the FA both related and unrelated to SK's wish to purchase Wembley, which, as far as I can tell, came to nothing.  CK's relationship with TK predated the FFC connection by a reasonably long time featuring the NFL statistical methodology etc., and suggests there was a meaningful working relationship involving trust and respect (if nothing deeper) and we do not know why that went wrong at FFC.  We can only surmise that something went very badly wrong indeed but I cannot think of any one thing that would cause such an irreparable upheaval unless it involved something seen to be malicious.  It still leaves an unpleasant taste in my mouth.

[H4usuallysitting]

I'll be honest - I don't really care who gets the manager's job.... it's the dithering that annoys me....

[toshes mate]

[TK] isn't a bad person ... but his weaknesses are weaknesses clear to all ... I think his advantages and disadvantages are fairly clear, but it's clear that things could be worse if he resigns from the role, especially if the Khans start demanding cash flow out of the club like Arsenal and ManUnited owners do.

Firstly comments on this thread are not about someone being a good or bad person, since that requires judgements that we all hope are strictly irrelevant to anyone's involvement at FFC.  Comments about TK are about his relevance as the DoF at FFC and his ability to perform the tasks he has given himself.  He will still be co-owner even if he steps aside from the DoF role and, as such, he can interfere with or assist in and improve upon whatever he wishes to.  He would, however, be even more exposed to criticism if he made things worse via interference.  That is a normal position for any owner.

What you have to do if you want to justify your continued patronage to TK is to prove that FFC would flourish less well without TK as DoF, and the only proof of that requires something to happen which you disapprove of.  It is a Catch22.

Yes, we are in a Catch-22, because as you said if Tony Khan is sacked he is still the co-owner and can still mess up recruitment, and you think his mistakes will be more exposed to criticism as co-owner rather DoF, but i don't think his mistake have been under exposed. The most common and only  sentence by pundits about Fulham is "Fulham spent £100m and went down, money doesn't buy success". Even if they know 15 squad are more expensive than FFC.

The problem for the interferring owner facing a fan rebellion doesn't usually involve nepotism (i.e. SK would not be blamed for his son's presence only the inadequacy of a useless DoF).  Any fan rebellion against TK and SK just as co-owners would be more concentrated on investment failures which are the main reasons why any owner gets into trouble with support.  As has been already suggested if the Khans are running the Club in a conventional manner but are running it down then the intensity of rebellion by fans would be upped several notches.  It is much likely the Khans would simply sell the Club rather than take a route that has been tried before but failed.  My argument is that SK has serious interests in English football and can see the merits of being involved with FFC but may be currently feeling the same issues as we are feeling that 2018 was a missed opportunity - Wembley bid fails; owned and promoted team fails; many questions about personnel at the Club inappropriately dealt with etc.