Pod interview with Tony Khan

[wormbridge]

People believe what they believe and interpret things through that lens.   

I see this sort of comment a lot both in politics and debates about Tony Khan. Has it crossed your mind that perhaps the comment itself is your "belief" and "lens"? Perhaps the opposing arguments you dismiss as driven by entrenched belief, are actually based by objective reasoning, and you just can't accept that?

Well people are taking opposing things from the podcast despite all hearing the same words.   And confirmation is a very well known bias that we're all prone to.  So I don't think I'm saying anything too outlandish am I?

It's not a question of not accepting things.  I can disagree, though, right?  People all over the Fulham boards are allowed to insult Tony Khan and question his suitability for the role he has, but if someone like me thinks he's broadly on the right lines and doesn't deserve all the poo he gets, well then that seems to rub people up the wrong way. 

If you're talking about specific statements that some people have clearly misinterpreted due to their own bias, then I entirely sympathise with you there.

But the comment you made is one I often hear used to make broader, unfair generalisations, eg "Group A only voted for B because of their entrenched, misguided belief in C"

For example, there's plenty of empirical data and other reasonable evidence to support the "People all over the Fulham boards [who] insult Tony Khan and question his suitability for the role he has", so if you were just to dismiss all those posts as "people believing what they want to believe", that would obviously be very wrong.

No sure, I don't disagree with your points, but there are people listening to this and banging on about how he is still trying to take all responsibility for Mitrovic, for example.   Even with words that we can all agree on, people will interpret them in different ways.   So one man's "he's arrogant and trying to take all the credit" might be another man's "well he gets so much criticism I'm not surprised he's trying to talk himself up somewhat"   

All I'm saying is that people who very clearly didn't like Tony Khan before this don't seem to be changing their minds.   Now that's fine and nobody's concern in many ways, but I would have thought that the podcast was helpful in giving people some insight into what goes on, and generally (this is my work hat) we find that the more people know about something, the better disposed towards it they are.    So based on this, you might think that Khan opening up and talking in some depth would make people more positive. 

But that doesn't seem to be happening.  You can tell from the podcast that he feels he's not really been given a fair shake of the stick and is slightly confused by this.  I guess I'm of the same mind.

[Texas White]

People believe what they believe and interpret things through that lens.   

I see this sort of comment a lot both in politics and debates about Tony Khan. Has it crossed your mind that perhaps the comment itself is your "belief" and "lens"? Perhaps the opposing arguments you dismiss as driven by entrenched belief, are actually based by objective reasoning, and you just can't accept that?

Well people are taking opposing things from the podcast despite all hearing the same words.   And confirmation is a very well known bias that we're all prone to.  So I don't think I'm saying anything too outlandish am I?

It's not a question of not accepting things.  I can disagree, though, right?  People all over the Fulham boards are allowed to insult Tony Khan and question his suitability for the role he has, but if someone like me thinks he's broadly on the right lines and doesn't deserve all the poo he gets, well then that seems to rub people up the wrong way. 

If you're talking about specific statements that some people have clearly misinterpreted due to their own bias, then I entirely sympathise with you there.

But the comment you made is one I often hear used to make broader, unfair generalisations, eg "Group A only voted for B because of their entrenched, misguided belief in C"

For example, there's plenty of empirical data and other reasonable evidence to support the "People all over the Fulham boards [who] insult Tony Khan and question his suitability for the role he has", so if you were just to dismiss all those posts as "people believing what they want to believe", that would obviously be very wrong.

Haters like to hate. It was easier to sign a player before the internet. Now you get a sniff, it hits the web and other people are trying to steal them. No loyalty from players agents. Not as easy as you all think.

[Dr Quinzel]

If the Podcast wasn't forced to ask certain questions, avoiding others, and if they were allowed to retort and press on certain points, then maybe something would have come from it to allow those with a negative view of TK to feel otherwise, but since it was nothing of the like, that was never going to happen.

[Dr Quinzel]

People believe what they believe and interpret things through that lens.   

I see this sort of comment a lot both in politics and debates about Tony Khan. Has it crossed your mind that perhaps the comment itself is your "belief" and "lens"? Perhaps the opposing arguments you dismiss as driven by entrenched belief, are actually based by objective reasoning, and you just can't accept that?

Well people are taking opposing things from the podcast despite all hearing the same words.   And confirmation is a very well known bias that we're all prone to.  So I don't think I'm saying anything too outlandish am I?

It's not a question of not accepting things.  I can disagree, though, right?  People all over the Fulham boards are allowed to insult Tony Khan and question his suitability for the role he has, but if someone like me thinks he's broadly on the right lines and doesn't deserve all the poo he gets, well then that seems to rub people up the wrong way. 

If you're talking about specific statements that some people have clearly misinterpreted due to their own bias, then I entirely sympathise with you there.

But the comment you made is one I often hear used to make broader, unfair generalisations, eg "Group A only voted for B because of their entrenched, misguided belief in C"

For example, there's plenty of empirical data and other reasonable evidence to support the "People all over the Fulham boards [who] insult Tony Khan and question his suitability for the role he has", so if you were just to dismiss all those posts as "people believing what they want to believe", that would obviously be very wrong.

Haters like to hate. It was easier to sign a player before the internet. Now you get a sniff, it hits the web and other people are trying to steal them. No loyalty from players agents. Not as easy as you all think.

The internet? Give over. You think it's the internet that does that? It's agents!!!!

[wormbridge]

If the Podcast wasn't forced to ask certain questions, avoiding others, and if they were allowed to retort and press on certain points, then maybe something would have come from it to allow those with a negative view of TK to feel otherwise, but since it was nothing of the like, that was never going to happen.

no but even there, you understand that he's hardly going to criticise current players who he may be trying to sell, or talk about Sessegnon for obvious reasons.   The supporters trust have talked about tickets and that's minuted I think.  So what was missing really?   Was there nothing of use or interest there for you?  For me the hour flew by and I was fascinated. 

[love4ffc]

It's not uncommon for the higher-ups, i.e. CEO's, presidents, directors and such, to take credit for all the good things that are done underneath during their tenure.  This is nothing new and I suspect will continue throughout time. 

I have no doubt that in the end it was Tony who put the final decision in bringing Mitro.  Somewhere however I am sure there was an underling who originally put Mitro into the two-box system by either the means of scouting or stats. 

What would be nice would be for the higher-ups to give credit due to everyone and say something like, "My team started tracking Mitro while he was at Newcastle.  We put him in the system and in the end, while it was ultimately my decision, we all agreed Mitro would be a good deal and a good fit. " 

[wormbridge]

It's not uncommon for the higher-ups, i.e. CEO's, presidents, directors and such, to take credit for all the good things that are done underneath during their tenure.  This is nothing new and I suspect will continue throughout time. 

I have no doubt that in the end it was Tony who put the final decision in bringing Mitro.  Somewhere however I am sure there was an underling who originally put Mitro into the two-box system by either the means of scouting or stats. 

What would be nice would be for the higher-ups to give credit due to everyone and say something like, "My team started tracking Mitro while he was at Newcastle.  We put him in the system and in the end, while it was ultimately my decision, we all agreed Mitro would be a good deal and a good fit. "

but this is what I mean.  He literally said that the coaching staff had tracked him and recommended him and that when Mitro's move to Anderlecht fell through, it came down to relationships (Slav).  So he said what you suggest more or less.  But people aren't taking that from the podcast at all.  I wonder how many people with an opinion on this actually listened to it.  Not you, generally I mean.

[Dr Quinzel]

If the Podcast wasn't forced to ask certain questions, avoiding others, and if they were allowed to retort and press on certain points, then maybe something would have come from it to allow those with a negative view of TK to feel otherwise, but since it was nothing of the like, that was never going to happen.

no but even there, you understand that he's hardly going to criticise current players who he may be trying to sell, or talk about Sessegnon for obvious reasons.   The supporters trust have talked about tickets and that's minuted I think.  So what was missing really?   Was there nothing of use or interest there for you?  For me the hour flew by and I was fascinated.

All points have been discussed by the FST and minuted, so that's fairly irrelevant. There were points at which the interviewers could have pushed back ie - Being relegated in April meant he had a head start on the market : OK, so where are we? Why has yet again nothing happened? - Leaving transfers late allows for occasional better deals - OK, but are lost points not more important? - I do lots of work on Fulham when I'm away - Right, but you have three other jobs. How can you possibly split your time? None of this has to be critical points that would lose the club money ie discussing Sessegnon, but the fact that this obviously wasn't allowed and that TK only came into the interview with the knowledge he wouldn't be pushed on certain matters meant that the line of questioning gave someone like myself, a concerned fan, no reason to feel any differently, as we learned nothing new and didn't have our concerns allayed. Honestly, I found it very hard listening - he isn't my type of person whatsoever, and at this point I'm finding it hard to not find my enjoyment of my club affected by his presence.

[Dr Quinzel]

It's not uncommon for the higher-ups, i.e. CEO's, presidents, directors and such, to take credit for all the good things that are done underneath during their tenure.  This is nothing new and I suspect will continue throughout time. 

I have no doubt that in the end it was Tony who put the final decision in bringing Mitro.  Somewhere however I am sure there was an underling who originally put Mitro into the two-box system by either the means of scouting or stats. 

What would be nice would be for the higher-ups to give credit due to everyone and say something like, "My team started tracking Mitro while he was at Newcastle.  We put him in the system and in the end, while it was ultimately my decision, we all agreed Mitro would be a good deal and a good fit. "

Very fair, and speaks for people's assertion that he is both arrogant and in need of validation.

[wormbridge]

It's not uncommon for the higher-ups, i.e. CEO's, presidents, directors and such, to take credit for all the good things that are done underneath during their tenure.  This is nothing new and I suspect will continue throughout time. 

I have no doubt that in the end it was Tony who put the final decision in bringing Mitro.  Somewhere however I am sure there was an underling who originally put Mitro into the two-box system by either the means of scouting or stats. 

What would be nice would be for the higher-ups to give credit due to everyone and say something like, "My team started tracking Mitro while he was at Newcastle.  We put him in the system and in the end, while it was ultimately my decision, we all agreed Mitro would be a good deal and a good fit. "

Very fair, and speaks for people's assertion that he is both arrogant and in need of validation.

but did he not address this?

[Deeping_white]

It's not uncommon for the higher-ups, i.e. CEO's, presidents, directors and such, to take credit for all the good things that are done underneath during their tenure.  This is nothing new and I suspect will continue throughout time. 

I have no doubt that in the end it was Tony who put the final decision in bringing Mitro.  Somewhere however I am sure there was an underling who originally put Mitro into the two-box system by either the means of scouting or stats. 

What would be nice would be for the higher-ups to give credit due to everyone and say something like, "My team started tracking Mitro while he was at Newcastle.  We put him in the system and in the end, while it was ultimately my decision, we all agreed Mitro would be a good deal and a good fit. " 

Go and listen to the podcast because he literally says it was a team effort and all he really did was go to SK and say please can you sign off on this because Mitro will be our most expensive loan signing ever

[toshes mate]

It's not uncommon for the higher-ups, i.e. CEO's, presidents, directors and such, to take credit for all the good things that are done underneath during their tenure.  This is nothing new and I suspect will continue throughout time. 

I have no doubt that in the end it was Tony who put the final decision in bringing Mitro.  Somewhere however I am sure there was an underling who originally put Mitro into the two-box system by either the means of scouting or stats. 

What would be nice would be for the higher-ups to give credit due to everyone and say something like, "My team started tracking Mitro while he was at Newcastle.  We put him in the system and in the end, while it was ultimately my decision, we all agreed Mitro would be a good deal and a good fit. "

Very fair, and speaks for people's assertion that he is both arrogant and in need of validation.

TK has the kind of personality that you'll either see or see through.  Who is right and who is wrong is a matter of personal taste.  I personally don't see him as a leader and some of the things he said endorsed that view.  There is the point where he says he never interfered with team selection and yet he also says he expressed opinions on same to the coaches.  That is a reflection of how his personality works and how he expects (note the word) others to deal with.  Leaders require followers and I believe TK follows in order to appear to lead - in other words his logic is as twisted as his belief that data manipulation can do what a human being cannot.  First law of programming - it needs a human being to understand the problem thoroughly before being able to determine if a computer can produce the desired result.

[love4ffc]

Overall I would say it was a good podcast for Fulhamish, FFC and TK.  Was there anything ground breaking and truly revealing?   No, not really.  Still thought it was good of TK to do it. 

Do think it would be great if TK, or even Khan senior, to do more of these type of things throughout the season.   I

[toshes mate]

It's not uncommon for the higher-ups, i.e. CEO's, presidents, directors and such, to take credit for all the good things that are done underneath during their tenure.  This is nothing new and I suspect will continue throughout time. 

I have no doubt that in the end it was Tony who put the final decision in bringing Mitro.  Somewhere however I am sure there was an underling who originally put Mitro into the two-box system by either the means of scouting or stats. 

What would be nice would be for the higher-ups to give credit due to everyone and say something like, "My team started tracking Mitro while he was at Newcastle.  We put him in the system and in the end, while it was ultimately my decision, we all agreed Mitro would be a good deal and a good fit. " 

Go and listen to the podcast because he literally says it was a team effort and all he really did was go to SK and say please can you sign off on this because Mitro will be our most expensive loan signing ever

But he didn't say that in as many words.  All he had to do was to be humble and he couldn't do it.

[wormbridge]

It's not uncommon for the higher-ups, i.e. CEO's, presidents, directors and such, to take credit for all the good things that are done underneath during their tenure.  This is nothing new and I suspect will continue throughout time. 

I have no doubt that in the end it was Tony who put the final decision in bringing Mitro.  Somewhere however I am sure there was an underling who originally put Mitro into the two-box system by either the means of scouting or stats. 

What would be nice would be for the higher-ups to give credit due to everyone and say something like, "My team started tracking Mitro while he was at Newcastle.  We put him in the system and in the end, while it was ultimately my decision, we all agreed Mitro would be a good deal and a good fit. "

Very fair, and speaks for people's assertion that he is both arrogant and in need of validation.

TK has the kind of personality that you'll either see or see through.  Who is right and who is wrong is a matter of personal taste.  I personally don't see him as a leader and some of the things he said endorsed that view.  There is the point where he says he never interfered with team selection and yet he also says he expressed opinions on same to the coaches.  That is a reflection of how his personality works and how he expects (note the word) others to deal with.  Leaders require followers and I believe TK follows in order to appear to lead - in other words his logic is as twisted as his belief that data manipulation can do what a human being cannot.  First law of programming - it needs a human being to understand the problem thoroughly before being able to determine if a computer can produce the desired result.

But it's fairly well established that it can.   https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1788702050/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 the first few pages of this book give an excellent overview of why.  Humans will see the same match and give very different interpretations of what they've seen.  They'll remember some bits and not others, and what they see will conform to their own biases.   And they can only see a very limited number of games, too.  Data gets past all that.   Your point about needing to understand is reasonable but the data ought to prove itself and, as noted in the interview, if the scouts and data disagree they'll keep looking to understand why.  So it doesn't seem unreasonable at all.

[toshes mate]

It's not uncommon for the higher-ups, i.e. CEO's, presidents, directors and such, to take credit for all the good things that are done underneath during their tenure.  This is nothing new and I suspect will continue throughout time. 

I have no doubt that in the end it was Tony who put the final decision in bringing Mitro.  Somewhere however I am sure there was an underling who originally put Mitro into the two-box system by either the means of scouting or stats. 

What would be nice would be for the higher-ups to give credit due to everyone and say something like, "My team started tracking Mitro while he was at Newcastle.  We put him in the system and in the end, while it was ultimately my decision, we all agreed Mitro would be a good deal and a good fit. "

Very fair, and speaks for people's assertion that he is both arrogant and in need of validation.

TK has the kind of personality that you'll either see or see through.  Who is right and who is wrong is a matter of personal taste.  I personally don't see him as a leader and some of the things he said endorsed that view.  There is the point where he says he never interfered with team selection and yet he also says he expressed opinions on same to the coaches.  That is a reflection of how his personality works and how he expects (note the word) others to deal with.  Leaders require followers and I believe TK follows in order to appear to lead - in other words his logic is as twisted as his belief that data manipulation can do what a human being cannot.  First law of programming - it needs a human being to understand the problem thoroughly before being able to determine if a computer can produce the desired result.

But it's fairly well established that it can.   https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1788702050/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 the first few pages of this book give an excellent overview of why.  Humans will see the same match and give very different interpretations of what they've seen.  They'll remember some bits and not others, and what they see will conform to their own biases.   And they can only see a very limited number of games, too.  Data gets past all that.   Your point about needing to understand is reasonable but the data ought to prove itself and, as noted in the interview, if the scouts and data disagree they'll keep looking to understand why.  So it doesn't seem unreasonable at all.

I am a computer programmer of almost fifty years experience.  What do I know?

[ALG01]

Can someone tell me the exact starting date of TK as director of football?

I think we all agree that he's inexperienced.

I think we can also agree that he shouldn't buy injured players...which he's done too often in the past.

He's made mistakes...yes.   

He also signed Mitrovic (as he stated in the interview)
He also extended Sess and his brothers contract
He also offered Slav an extension of his contract prior to the team getting promoted (can someone confirm this please)
He signed Ryan Babel who NO ONE on this forum would have picked (it was also obvious that in addition to having a horrible defense...Fulham needed someone besides Mitro and Schurrle scoring goals) and Ryan was arguably one of the best...if not the best player on Fulham's side for the last 10 games.
....

Now...I'm about to bring up someone that I KNOW I'm going to get a lot of slack for... but Tony Khan brought in Timothy Fosu Mensah on loan as a young, aggressive FB (I think he was 20 when he came to Fulham) who would have started more games at RB for Crystal Palace except he was unseated by the player that just got 50 million from Manchester United to be their starting RB.

And it has been posted several places on the internet...and myself before those post...Timothy Fosu Mensah was one of the few available right backs with EPL experience that was just as fast as Ryan Fredericks.   And he'd played some really good games against the likes of Manchester City and Tottenham (before he'd turned 20)

Yes...last minute acquisition...but Tony Khan did his best to try and find a Ryan Fredericks replacement knowing full well that Cyrus Christie wasn't good enough.


He also brought in Chambers.

That's Mawson, Chambers and Timbo...who...based on their stats and some of the eyeball test...were good additions to a promoted championship side.

It failed miserably. 

He knows it failed miserably. 

The true test will be how long it takes for TK to learn from his mistakes and for Fulham to come back up.   

I'll take the Khans as a pair before I give up on the two of them for an owner I don't know and a DOF that has more experience.

That might not be the case in 3 years, but for right now I'm ok with Tony Khan learning on the job.

I happen to think everything you say is a perfectly reasonable and is a proper rounded argumen. I come from a placer that says since Mr Khan took over (snr) we have generally been poor in the transfer department, very poor. Now we all know that  all transfers are a gamble and when MAF arrived there were a number of dreadful signings BUT the general direction of travel and the attempt to get it right was generally in the right direction. When MAF got it werong he fixed it and changed direction.

What we have now is a very poor transfer policy and despite what TK says, the players we got in each of the last three seasons have left a lot to be desired. The promotion season in the end revolved around 14 players that fortunately remianed fit, the rest of the squad was way below the required standard. We also had the best manager and he knew how to get the best from the players. With a different manager TK would have still assembled the same squad and I am 98% certain there would not have been a wonderful day at Wembley.


The issue overiding all this is we all want what is best for Fulham or why else are we discussing the issue. My experience over nearly 60 years of watching and continuing to play (when I can get enough players to come and have a game) is that TK is absolutely the wrong man for the job with which he is entrusted. I see season after season the same errors repeating. The fact he cannot get players in ion the right day is testement to him not knowing what he was dioing, Christensen was mentioned in the podcast he says was universally welcomed... I didn't welcome him, it seemed to me a bizarre signing at the time and said so. It's not rocket science it#''s knowedge of the game. I do not need a spreadsheet to tell me that a player is not good enough or suitable.

This next season is likely to be a debacle because TK does not seem to have learned one single thing. He thinks the same squad as the promotion season will be enough, ior should I say same squad plus to french speaking liabilities. The lack of slav will do for us unless we have major surgery of the correct type in good time before the first ball is kicked and to date there is no evidence that to suggest we are buying a fit center half (I have no faith we will see mawsom for more than 10 games) a proper right back (Christie is dreadful we all know that) a dominant physicl central midfielder and another center forward. Not rocket science.

TK thought rico and fabri were a good idea, I rest my case.

[70sPimlico]

I was deflated with the news AK is coming back.

I just dont happen to think he is that good. Apart from that, all seems well

[wormbridge]

It's not uncommon for the higher-ups, i.e. CEO's, presidents, directors and such, to take credit for all the good things that are done underneath during their tenure.  This is nothing new and I suspect will continue throughout time. 

I have no doubt that in the end it was Tony who put the final decision in bringing Mitro.  Somewhere however I am sure there was an underling who originally put Mitro into the two-box system by either the means of scouting or stats. 

What would be nice would be for the higher-ups to give credit due to everyone and say something like, "My team started tracking Mitro while he was at Newcastle.  We put him in the system and in the end, while it was ultimately my decision, we all agreed Mitro would be a good deal and a good fit. "

Very fair, and speaks for people's assertion that he is both arrogant and in need of validation.

TK has the kind of personality that you'll either see or see through.  Who is right and who is wrong is a matter of personal taste.  I personally don't see him as a leader and some of the things he said endorsed that view.  There is the point where he says he never interfered with team selection and yet he also says he expressed opinions on same to the coaches.  That is a reflection of how his personality works and how he expects (note the word) others to deal with.  Leaders require followers and I believe TK follows in order to appear to lead - in other words his logic is as twisted as his belief that data manipulation can do what a human being cannot.  First law of programming - it needs a human being to understand the problem thoroughly before being able to determine if a computer can produce the desired result.

But it's fairly well established that it can.   https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1788702050/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 the first few pages of this book give an excellent overview of why.  Humans will see the same match and give very different interpretations of what they've seen.  They'll remember some bits and not others, and what they see will conform to their own biases.   And they can only see a very limited number of games, too.  Data gets past all that.   Your point about needing to understand is reasonable but the data ought to prove itself and, as noted in the interview, if the scouts and data disagree they'll keep looking to understand why.  So it doesn't seem unreasonable at all.

I am a computer programmer of almost fifty years experience.  What do I know?

I don't know?

[I Ronic]

In the past, if company A fancies buying company B it would look for an info it could find maybe look over company B's books given the chance. Now that would all be accessed via computers and.various analysts will crunch the data. That's all he's trying to do. To rule out as many negatives as possible. It's not 100% maybe somewhere round 50%. If he can get his %'s up then the Club succeeds. Whilst we have one of the richest men in the World holding the reins I'm happy to let him get on with it and try and make it work.