Video clip

[Andy S]

There was a video clip earlier this week on here showing Fulham and Watford featuring a well run club and a not so well run club. Ok we were relegated but the fact is it didn't start with an even playing field so you cannot put any store in the vid at all. Some of the facts supplied were at best debatable. Whatever way you look at it and however well teams in the bottom dozen do, three of them will get relegated next season

[BigbadBillyMcKinley]

The way I would consider us a badly run club is if a food bank has to donate to feed our staff like at Bolton. Or we rapidly drop through the leagues like Sunderland. THEY'RE badly run. We could have better recruitment policies, but the bills are paid, they're looking to improve the infrastructure - training ground and stadium - which will help us become more more self sufficient.
We are by far a "badly run club". Aspects are poor but that's it. 

[hovewhite]

The one thing about Fulham that doesn't work for me is the major thing, Cumminication.

[The Rational Fan]

The "TIFO Game Theory" video implied that Fulham is a badly run club, because it's playing a finite game (i.e. fancy words for thinking short term) with its purchases in the summer of 2018. Its absolute nonsense to imply the summer of 2018 was good short-term thinking, i lost respect for TIFO with that video. TK probably understands Game Theory better than any other DoF and seems to definitely playing a Infinite Game (ie Fulham til I Die), his weakness is he doesn't know football too well, which the video didn't mention.

[Fernhurst]

The way I would consider us a badly run club is if a food bank has to donate to feed our staff like at Bolton. Or we rapidly drop through the leagues like Sunderland. THEY'RE badly run. We could have better recruitment policies, but the bills are paid, they're looking to improve the infrastructure - training ground and stadium - which will help us become more more self sufficient.
We are by far a "badly run club". Aspects are poor but that's it. 

Thank goodness, a bit of sense ( not like you Billy!!! 😜) The constant mud slinging at our Owner is dispiriting and completely needless. We have our issues but generally we are not in a bad place.

[Statto]

The way I would consider us a badly run club is if a food bank has to donate to feed our staff like at Bolton. Or we rapidly drop through the leagues like Sunderland. THEY'RE badly run. We could have better recruitment policies, but the bills are paid, they're looking to improve the infrastructure - training ground and stadium - which will help us become more more self sufficient.
We are by far a "badly run club". Aspects are poor but that's it. 

Does make me laugh when people try to set us apart from clubs like Sunderland and Bolton. Charlton and Blackburn are another two that get mentioned. A few years ago we finished below 3 of those 4 and only one place above the other. Last season we were better than all of them but next season we'll be back in the same division as at least two of them and I can guarantee we'll get turned over by Blackburn or Sunderland/Charlton at least once.

Overall, under the Khans' tenure we've been around the same level as these clubs, despite spending many times more than all four of them put together. So how can we confidently say we're much better run?

[Nero]

The "TIFO Game Theory" video implied that Fulham is a badly run club, because it's playing a finite game (i.e. fancy words for thinking short term) with its purchases in the summer of 2018. Its absolute nonsense to imply the summer of 2018 was good short-term thinking, i lost respect for TIFO with that video. TK probably understands Game Theory better than any other DoF and seems to definitely playing a Infinite Game (ie Fulham til I Die), his weakness is he doesn't know football too well, which the video didn't mention.

I expect it was a bit short term the idea being stay in the premier league with a squard that will last a few seasons and knowing that you are likley to be safe then look at purchasing more long term prospect hard to compare a team thats been in the Premier 1 season against one that been in it for 3 years and if you look at the signings they made when they went up  not many there now plus they team that got them up was full of loan players that made the league change their rules on loans and watford also let the manager who got them up go but there first season back up them made 18 siginings

[Andy S]

I would argue that no two clubs are the same anyway. Look at London Council tax and wages then at the other extreme Sunderland would be a lot less but they have bigger crowds. Bournemouth do not deserve to survive on their crowds but they are managing within a budget so they will. Leeds tried to buy above what they can afford  nearly went skint and have fallen apart again for the umpteenth time.

[I Ronic]

The way I would consider us a badly run club is if a food bank has to donate to feed our staff like at Bolton. Or we rapidly drop through the leagues like Sunderland. THEY'RE badly run. We could have better recruitment policies, but the bills are paid, they're looking to improve the infrastructure - training ground and stadium - which will help us become more more self sufficient.
We are by far a "badly run club". Aspects are poor but that's it.

0001.jpeg

[toshes mate]

IMO the only shortcoming of the video was that it does not, and doesn't intend to, deal in detail where you'll find a whole heap of facts that contradict the finite or infinite strategy.  What the video intends to point out is that the long term (infinite) strategy will be borne out by actions which suggest building by stealth rather than actions that suggest opportunism and little coherency of thought.  The detail is there and I'd remind everyone that every step taken may be one step closer to failure or to success which is what the finite game tells us; the crucial determinant is whether you hold fast to your beliefs or give them up at the first signs of stress.  The clues are there at every club run at a professional level in football or whatever and the stronger the belief in good foundations the better the chances of staying on the right course will be.

[BigbadBillyMcKinley]

The way I would consider us a badly run club is if a food bank has to donate to feed our staff like at Bolton. Or we rapidly drop through the leagues like Sunderland. THEY'RE badly run. We could have better recruitment policies, but the bills are paid, they're looking to improve the infrastructure - training ground and stadium - which will help us become more more self sufficient.
We are by far a "badly run club". Aspects are poor but that's it. 

Does make me laugh when people try to set us apart from clubs like Sunderland and Bolton. Charlton and Blackburn are another two that get mentioned. A few years ago we finished below 3 of those 4 and only one place above the other. Last season we were better than all of them but next season we'll be back in the same division as at least two of them and I can guarantee we'll get turned over by Blackburn or Sunderland/Charlton at least once.

Overall, under the Khans' tenure we've been around the same level as these clubs, despite spending many times more than all four of them put together. So how can we confidently say we're much better run?

You're missing my point on both those clubs. Whether they beat us in a football match, does not mean their well run. Just means they scored more goals.
The fact Bolton CAN NOT pay their staff, but we can, shows we're much better run. Sunderland went from the premiership to league 1 in 2 seasons. Unless we do that, we're better run than they are. Regardless of the results on the pitch.
If Welling beat Man City in the FA cup, would that mean they're better run or were more up for it than Coty?

[Statto]

The way I would consider us a badly run club is if a food bank has to donate to feed our staff like at Bolton. Or we rapidly drop through the leagues like Sunderland. THEY'RE badly run. We could have better recruitment policies, but the bills are paid, they're looking to improve the infrastructure - training ground and stadium - which will help us become more more self sufficient.
We are by far a "badly run club". Aspects are poor but that's it. 

Does make me laugh when people try to set us apart from clubs like Sunderland and Bolton. Charlton and Blackburn are another two that get mentioned. A few years ago we finished below 3 of those 4 and only one place above the other. Last season we were better than all of them but next season we'll be back in the same division as at least two of them and I can guarantee we'll get turned over by Blackburn or Sunderland/Charlton at least once.

Overall, under the Khans' tenure we've been around the same level as these clubs, despite spending many times more than all four of them put together. So how can we confidently say we're much better run?

You're missing my point on both those clubs. Whether they beat us in a football match, does not mean their well run. Just means they scored more goals.
The fact Bolton CAN NOT pay their staff, but we can, shows we're much better run. Sunderland went from the premiership to league 1 in 2 seasons. Unless we do that, we're better run than they are. Regardless of the results on the pitch.
If Welling beat Man City in the FA cup, would that mean they're better run or were more up for it than Coty?

I'm not talking about a single football match. I'm talking about general performance in recent years.

Under the Khan's tenure our average position has been 7th in the Championship - which is the same as Sunderland's over the same period.
The other clubs mentioned have on average been below us, no more than 10-15 league places, not a huge gulf, and generally in the same division.
If we'd have been in a mini-league with those 4 clubs over the last 6 years we'd have finished 2nd, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, 1st and 1st - admittedly showing improvement but next season we'll be back in the same division as two of them.
Yes we have outperformed most of them but not by much, and as I said despite spending more than double, maybe even treble or more, what all of them put together have spent.

So it's a bit like saying that had Welling spent a tiny fraction of what City have spent in the last 6 years and finished above them in 2-3 those years, and generally not been far behind them, would I consider Welling the better run club? Er, yes I would mate. 

[RogFFC]

Interesting how a 5 minute video can create so much discussion! I posted the link to it, it's a 5 minute video - it's not going to provide a complete view of competency within the management of the club but it does highlight that short termism is definitely the TK footballing model (whether that is right or wrong is a point of debate as well).

My view is that if you invested £100m in anything for absolutely no reward that is a pretty horrific return which deserves criticism. The saving grace for the Khan's is they have the resources to spend £100m and get very little return, that is the only difference between us and Sunderland IMO. The Khan's have the money to waste, Sunderland didn't.

Also it's an absolute disgrace regarding the ticket pricing, another short term strategy which alienates committed fans and favours tourists who create zero atmosphere (hard to understand the importance of this if you don't actually attend games regularly I suppose though). Almost any other set of fans would be in absolute uproar at this, so I think the Khan's have got off pretty lucky there too!

[Sting of the North]

Interesting how a 5 minute video can create so much discussion! I posted the link to it, it's a 5 minute video - it's not going to provide a complete view of competency within the management of the club but it does highlight that short termism is definitely the TK footballing model (whether that is right or wrong is a point of debate as well).

My view is that if you invested £100m in anything for absolutely no reward that is a pretty horrific return which deserves criticism. The saving grace for the Khan's is they have the resources to spend £100m and get very little return, that is the only difference between us and Sunderland IMO. The Khan's have the money to waste, Sunderland didn't.

Also it's an absolute disgrace regarding the ticket pricing, another short term strategy which alienates committed fans and favours tourists who create zero atmosphere (hard to understand the importance of this if you don't actually attend games regularly I suppose though). Almost any other set of fans would be in absolute uproar at this, so I think the Khan's have got off pretty lucky there too!

I admittedly didn't watch the video, but just a few thoughts on your view above.

Firstly, how do you figure that there was absolutely no reward for the 100 m? Are the players brought in now worth 0? Maybe the video is a bit more balanced and thoughtful though, and I just lack context. If you mean reward as in staying in the league, then obviously anyone would agree that we got no reward. Of course, then it is just either a 100 % reward (staying up) or a 0 % reward (relegation).

It is also very unclear to me how TK's transfer strategy is seen as short term. I thought an important point was to find players with resale value, which to me sound long term. Short term would surely be to go for ready made seasoned PL players (presumably with much less resale value, but more of a chance to keeping us up). It may be deemed a nad strategy, but doesn't scream short term to me.

Secondly, if you want to compare how well a club is run, it feels rather important to note whether you can afford to spend what you do spend, or if you are taking a chance. So, in my opinion a rather huge difference between us and Sunderland, based on your comment above.

In any case, maybe I should just watch the video to see if there is some merit to it.

[filham]

If Mitrovic stays with us and scores 25 goals next season no one would suggest that we are badly run whereas for all we know the organisation could be dreadful.

In particular are we relying on poor vending machines or is a good cuppa served hot, on time and in china mugs.

[ALG01]

well this is an interesting thread.
i think when we say well run it depends what we mean.
Are we well run apropos team matters? well clearly not because
1. we were relegated having spent a fortune on players
2. we had a ridiculous approach to bringing in transfers
3. reliant far to much on loan players
4. sacked a very capable manager way too early; he paid the price for the DoFs incompetence

I hope we all would more or less agree with the foregoing.

Are we well run off the pitch?
This is a more tricky answer because none of us really know. I suspect we can pay the bills because we have a rich owner  and things are broadly organised. But I do have an uneasy feeling it is not quite as good as it should be because the hype does not match the actuality. The new stand/season ticket issue is not fundamental but sends a a message that something is not right.

The video in question was rather two dimensional and I agree with a post above that each club is different and has to be treated on its own merits.

[Statto]

Secondly, if you want to compare how well a club is run, it feels rather important to note whether you can afford to spend what you do spend, or if you are taking a chance. So, in my opinion a rather huge difference between us and Sunderland, based on your comment above.

Could you clarify what you mean by "afford"?

They probably have higher natural revenues than us, having a bigger fan base, and I suspect had less financial commitments when they went down (a similar wage bill but less recent transfer fees to account for) not to mention parachute payments coming in over a longer period

The only reason things went so tits up for them is their American billionaire owner had made them financially dependent on him, then lost interest in the club... it wouldn't surprise me if our owner announced something similar later this week, when we get the much-anticipated update on STs/the Riverside Stand

[Sting of the North]

Secondly, if you want to compare how well a club is run, it feels rather important to note whether you can afford to spend what you do spend, or if you are taking a chance. So, in my opinion a rather huge difference between us and Sunderland, based on your comment above.

Could you clarify what you mean by "afford"?

They probably have higher natural revenues than us, having a bigger fan base, and I suspect had less financial commitments when they went down (a similar wage bill but less recent transfer fees to account for) not to mention parachute payments coming in over a longer period

The only reason things went so tits up for them is their American billionaire owner had made them financially dependent on him, then lost interest in the club... it wouldn't surprise me if our owner announced something similar later this week, when we get the much-anticipated update on STs/the Riverside Stand

I don't mean anything by "afford". It was just in response to RogFFC who claimed that Fulham had "the resources to spend £100m and get very little return, that is the only difference between us and Sunderland IMO. The Khan's have the money to waste, Sunderland didn't."

I didn't try to look into whether or not he was correct, just wanted to point out that if he was, it is not an unimportant difference.
 

[Statto]

Secondly, if you want to compare how well a club is run, it feels rather important to note whether you can afford to spend what you do spend, or if you are taking a chance. So, in my opinion a rather huge difference between us and Sunderland, based on your comment above.

Could you clarify what you mean by "afford"?

They probably have higher natural revenues than us, having a bigger fan base, and I suspect had less financial commitments when they went down (a similar wage bill but less recent transfer fees to account for) not to mention parachute payments coming in over a longer period

The only reason things went so tits up for them is their American billionaire owner had made them financially dependent on him, then lost interest in the club... it wouldn't surprise me if our owner announced something similar later this week, when we get the much-anticipated update on STs/the Riverside Stand

I don't mean anything by "afford". It was just in response to RogFFC who claimed that Fulham had "the resources to spend £100m and get very little return, that is the only difference between us and Sunderland IMO. The Khan's have the money to waste, Sunderland didn't."

I didn't try to look into whether or not he was correct, just wanted to point out that if he was, it is not an unimportant difference.
 

Well in that case, out of interest, do you think Fulham and Sunderland should be distinguished in that way (with the implication that it would mean, at least in that respect, we're a better run club)?

[Sting of the North]

Secondly, if you want to compare how well a club is run, it feels rather important to note whether you can afford to spend what you do spend, or if you are taking a chance. So, in my opinion a rather huge difference between us and Sunderland, based on your comment above.

Could you clarify what you mean by "afford"?

They probably have higher natural revenues than us, having a bigger fan base, and I suspect had less financial commitments when they went down (a similar wage bill but less recent transfer fees to account for) not to mention parachute payments coming in over a longer period

The only reason things went so tits up for them is their American billionaire owner had made them financially dependent on him, then lost interest in the club... it wouldn't surprise me if our owner announced something similar later this week, when we get the much-anticipated update on STs/the Riverside Stand

I don't mean anything by "afford". It was just in response to RogFFC who claimed that Fulham had "the resources to spend £100m and get very little return, that is the only difference between us and Sunderland IMO. The Khan's have the money to waste, Sunderland didn't."

I didn't try to look into whether or not he was correct, just wanted to point out that if he was, it is not an unimportant difference.
 

Well in that case, out of interest, do you think Fulham and Sunderland should be distinguished in that way (with the implication that it would mean, at least in that respect, we're a better run club)?

No, I don't. As far as I know Sunderland never risked their future more than we do (meaning that trouble may be on the horizon if the owner looses interest).