Pod interview with Tony Khan

[Matt10]

There were also a lot of things he didn't have to say, but chose to. Many times he started sentences with "People don't know this, but..." - I think that's what actually caught me off guard, and was pleasant surprise of him being genuine to the pod guys and listeners. 

[Dr Quinzel]

Candid actually means caught off guard or unprepared and so, if the RS prognosis is correct regardless of reasons of privacy or sensitivity, then as I suggested earlier he could have easily had a prepared and appropriately worded non-committal answer.  Likewise his manner was one of being happy as long as he was within his own comfort zone throughout although rather heavy on the voice lead hums and arrs for most of the time.  The reason I became interested in his 'love my work' passages was because he revealed someone who valued his work more than his friendships and that is where the interview did at last deepen if only very briefly.

Fair - I didn't want to get caught up in the words, but more the idea that it is was a laid bare, completely open interview, when to me, it wasn't really.

[Lighthouse]

Noticed a lot of people, and the most recent poster above me as an example, saying TK was 'open' or 'candid'.

It's a minor point, but is it really either of those things if certain questions are off of the table?

Everything was very soft (and I don't expect Fulhamish to have forced anything - they have to look after themselves and future access) and scripted, so the candidness only came on subjects that TK was willing to be candid about, which to my mind doesn't really make it the interview people are labelling it as at all.

What wasn't he candid about? He said last season he was a failure in recruitment. But he defended his record until then. Not sure it came over as scripted more than the interviewers were prepared. What harder questions would have been asked that would have made you happier with the content?  Certainly he was happy to answer these questions which is more than any other MD or official has done recently. He did make some startling errors, appointing Raneiri whose philosophy never fitted this team with no defenders of quality. He also admitted mistake with other players that didn't work out. As far as it went it was as candid as any interview could have been without throwing out accusations and recriminations.

They weren't allowed to ask about Sess for example. They weren't able to push back on his answers where often they needed further questioning to narrow things down, or at least a retort as to the appropriateness of the answer. So there was a level of control over the questions. Anytime questions are screened in advance, I can't consider an interview to be 'open' / 'candid' or whatever else someone may phrase that as. Do you follow what I mean?

I understand your point I just don't know what else he could have said or what other questions could have been asked. He  named names of players that didn't work out, something that was unusual to me and candid. As for not being allowed to ask about Sess? What could they have asked about a player who is in the middle of contract negotiations and may or may not be looking for a move? It is obvious we want to keep him but at the right price foolish not to let him go. I think he was as open as he could have been. I have no idea if the questions were screened or agreed in advance. But what was asked appeared interesting and as candid as any interview I have heard featuring a club representative. However I think the take on it depends on our preconceived ideas or belief in those involved. It didn't feel like a gloss or puff peace to me. However I take your point that it could well have been a staged event. It didn't feel like it to me.

[colinwhite]

Agree with lighthouse. Cant see what else he could have said.

[Dr Quinzel]

Agree with lighthouse. Cant see what else he could have said.

As someone who isn't satisfied with his employment or existence at the club, I suppose I have more questions than others maybe.

[YankeeJim]

Having read (painfully) these past 9 pages I've learned many things.
TK must have inspected Mawson's knee himself.
Most of us were happy when Seri was signed because Barca wanted him, don't ya know but his failure to impress was TK's fault.
TK can't take credit for Mitro, Odoi, Chambers, Bryan, Ayite, Babel or Johansen but is responsible for Noratveit, Fonte, Fosu-Mensah, Christi, Anguissa and Schurrle.

He IS responsible for all of these. He is in charge of the recruitment team and they pretty much failed. However, the medical team and the scouting department share the responsibility.

"Hey boss, I checked that knee and Mawson will be back at full strength in six weeks". "Hey boss, this kid Seri is a natural". "Anguissa has more potential than anyone in the world." "Noratveit will plug that defensive hole we have." yada yada yada

What I've really learned is that scapegoating is the real Fulham sport. Behind the ball we had Ali-Mac, Khan senior and now Khan junior. With the ball we have an endless list. Zamora, Baird, Ream, etc.

Anyway, automatic promotion this coming season. Parker will be a successful manager and Anguissa will come good. You heard it here first!

I love this Barca wanted him. If they'd really wanted him, they'd have got him. Yes they showed interest but never followed it up. Same with Chelsea.

Is sarcasm  beyond you?

[Arthur]

Do we consistently perform poorly compared to most of our peer clubs? Yes

I recognise that you are not claiming that this is anything more than a rough picture, but does your research even lend itself to your answering your question above?

I say this because the points-per-million figure has been calculated incorrectly. Look at Preston, for instance. 38 points for every million spent? If that were true, their chairman must be kicking himself that he didn't give the manager another million that summer. What this figure also implies - wrongly, of course - is that, had Preston spent nothing at all, they would have had no points at all.

To generate an accurate points-per-million figure, you would need a piece of data that doesn't exist: specifically, the number of points that Preston would have got had they spent nothing at all.

[wheelerdeeler]

On a more basic level, surely calculating points per million spent has to include total amount spent on the squad, and not just in one transfer window? Otherwise Man City would have had a ridiculous points per million last season because they just bought Mahrez for 55m last summer and got 99 points. Similarly Villa in the 17/18 column only spent 2.5m, because they spent 50-60m the previous season.

If the table was based on total spend on the playing squad we'd have finished 15th last season, so factoring in the fact that we got players in so late and there was a lack of team cohesion it's not out of the realm of possibility that we finished 4 places lower than that.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have expected more than 26 points out of 38 games after spending 100m, but still. The way I see it, we didn't spend money that much worse than Brighton have spent their money since they got promoted. Spending 20m on Jahanbakhsh, 14m on Locadia etc. the only players that have actually improved their promotion team have been Ryan, Groß (in the first season) and Propper. The difference was their team that got promoted managed to take the step up whereas the players we were looking to like Cairney and Sessegnon underperformed.

The general point is, it's a lot easier than you'd think to waste money on players and it's not exclusive to Tony Khan. We just didn't have the safety net of a Dunk and Duffy type Centre-Back pairing to bail us out (which you could argue is Tony Khan's fault).

[RaySmith]

Agree with lighthouse. Cant see what else he could have said.

0001.jpeg

He did seem open and honest, to me, and it's to his great credit that he has been this open with fans - very unusual for someone in his position. When has  any of the powers that be at Fulham ever previously  been open with  the supporters, or told them anything about what's been going on?

[Statto]

On a more basic level, surely calculating points per million spent has to include total amount spent on the squad, and not just in one transfer window?

But I addressed this above. I said I agreed that looking over a broader period would give a more accurate picture, I just havn't the time to do that on a weekday evening.

The data is there so you're free to do that yourself, and post the results.

What I also said, however, is "as is painfully clear to anyone who bothers to conduct any half-intelligent analysis of the data with a reasonable level of granularity, it will reflect poorly on TK. That's why the defences of TK on this forum invariably rely on cursory (at best) analyses and intuitive judgments."

[Statto]

Noticed a lot of people, and the most recent poster above me as an example, saying TK was 'open' or 'candid'.

It's a minor point, but is it really either of those things if certain questions are off of the table?

Everything was very soft (and I don't expect Fulhamish to have forced anything - they have to look after themselves and future access) and scripted, so the candidness only came on subjects that TK was willing to be candid about, which to my mind doesn't really make it the interview people are labelling it as at all.

I understand this point entirely.

It's a very basic, clearly-articulated point. It's also a matter of simple logic, rather than opinion or belief, and therefore shouldn't be controversial with posters in either the pro- and anti-TK camp.

I think unfortunately, with all due respect, it's just gone over several posters' heads.

[I Ronic]

Noticed a lot of people, and the most recent poster above me as an example, saying TK was 'open' or 'candid'.

It's a minor point, but is it really either of those things if certain questions are off of the table?

Everything was very soft (and I don't expect Fulhamish to have forced anything - they have to look after themselves and future access) and scripted, so the candidness only came on subjects that TK was willing to be candid about, which to my mind doesn't really make it the interview people are labelling it as at all.

Frankly, I wasn't surprised "everything was very soft." This was a first in a number of ways. They didn't ask many questions but that in part was due to the fact that TK's answers went far beyond the original question and we learned his take on several situations. If they get another chance to interview him, I'm sure they'll ask him to expand on some of his answers.
Keeping channels of communication open has to be better than battering the guy with all that went wrong and effectively killing the chance of any future podcasts with him or maybe his dad.

[colinwhite]

Agree with lighthouse. Cant see what else he could have said.

As someone who isn't satisfied with his employment or existence at the club, I suppose I have more questions than others maybe.

Im not any less satisfied than anybody else . He is clearly in the role to stay whether we like it or not so I cant see the point of some. posters constantly going on about his level of competence .  He clearly goes with the package of ownership and I think the Khans are doing a lot of good things for our great club. The irony is that had he been an imcompetent (non son of owner ) director of football, that in my view would have been alot worse. The question is then would that person have got so much negative attention.

[toshes mate]

Do we consistently perform poorly compared to most of our peer clubs? Yes

I recognise that you are not claiming that this is anything more than a rough picture, but does your research even lend itself to your answering your question above?

I say this because the points-per-million figure has been calculated incorrectly. Look at Preston, for instance. 38 points for every million spent? If that were true, their chairman must be kicking himself that he didn't give the manager another million that summer. What this figure also implies - wrongly, of course - is that, had Preston spent nothing at all, they would have had no points at all.

To generate an accurate points-per-million figure, you would need a piece of data that doesn't exist: specifically, the number of points that Preston would have got had they spent nothing at all.

I see what you are trying to say but it is true of any set of figures. 
There would be a hyphen or an infinity symbol in the column since no money was spent. It is just like if a manager signed for a club but for some reason didn't manage a game for them, he would still be a manager but would have an incalculable Points Per Game tally.  Or, in the case of a ten points deduction for a team and no points won a manager would have negative PPG.  They are just awkward cases but do not detract from the point being made. 

[toshes mate]

If TK claims the glory for players who did sign he also has to take the flak for the ones who didn't sign since he is the negotiator tasked with attracting the player to FFC, sorting a deal and signing them. That is a prime job that he appears to enjoy in all his ventures - attracting others to join his circuses and it is what he had to do for every position that is/was begging to be filled since he took the job on at the time of Jokanovic's first summer and the last minute loan of Martin to replace outgoing McCormack and Dembele II. 

We know from his podcast ramblings that TK's 'hard work' was pretty easy to do with the signings of Mitro and Mawson last summer, for example, and you can then deduce, at your convenience, why that may be.  We also know, although he didn't mention it in the interview ('why?' may be a sensitive question) that Seri was offered to us by Lyons when a deal was being negotiated for MLM since that information is already in the public domain and remains undisputed except for one FOFer who says it wasn't so.  TK doesn't even mention a situation where he went shopping for a modest utility defender and came back with an expensive midfielder in addition?  The reasons why he doesn't touch on the more difficult things he could have mentioned are complex and could range from him having negated them from his mind, or simply saturating our minds with his good points much as a child does to a parent when they feel insecure or just not feeling happy to do so.  He feels on safer ground just to say Ragnar Siggurdson 'didn't work out' (just one of those things), a discovery made for him by his head coach at the time.

I just wish the TK worshippers would have the same sense of balance as they expect of his detractors.  I happen to believe his record is rather on the poor side of mediorcre considering his father would apparently always give him (see TheRationalFan many contributions to this forum for reasons) what he needs in terms of cash, provided the FFP rules are not breached again.  It isn't just the transfer values we should look at it is also the wages.

[Dr Quinzel]

Agree with lighthouse. Cant see what else he could have said.

As someone who isn't satisfied with his employment or existence at the club, I suppose I have more questions than others maybe.

Im not any less satisfied than anybody else . He is clearly in the role to stay whether we like it or not so I cant see the point of some. posters constantly going on about his level of competence .  He clearly goes with the package of ownership and I think the Khans are doing a lot of good things for our great club. The irony is that had he been an imcompetent (non son of owner ) director of football, that in my view would have been alot worse. The question is then would that person have got so much negative attention.

I'll keep going on about it until something changes. The idea of 'whether we like it or not' and 'what is the point' baffles me. When something is clearly inappropriate, why would you just blindly accept it?

I don't believe that it is acceptable for SK to say he's only here on the basis TK is. If that is how he feels, then SK isn't the owner we feel he is. The idea that they're a package deal is just astounding to me.

[Dr Quinzel]

Noticed a lot of people, and the most recent poster above me as an example, saying TK was 'open' or 'candid'.

It's a minor point, but is it really either of those things if certain questions are off of the table?

Everything was very soft (and I don't expect Fulhamish to have forced anything - they have to look after themselves and future access) and scripted, so the candidness only came on subjects that TK was willing to be candid about, which to my mind doesn't really make it the interview people are labelling it as at all.

I understand this point entirely.

It's a very basic, clearly-articulated point. It's also a matter of simple logic, rather than opinion or belief, and therefore shouldn't be controversial with posters in either the pro- and anti-TK camp.

I think unfortunately, with all due respect, it's just gone over several posters' heads.

Thanks Statto. I wasn't sure quite else how to phrase it - some I assume are just being wilfully ignorant, but it's such a minor point it doesn't seem labouring on any further.

[ALG01]

If TK claims the glory for players who did sign he also has to take the flak for the ones who didn't sign since he is the negotiator tasked with attracting the player to FFC, sorting a deal and signing them. That is a prime job that he appears to enjoy in all his ventures - attracting others to join his circuses and it is what he had to do for every position that is/was begging to be filled since he took the job on at the time of Jokanovic's first summer and the last minute loan of Martin to replace outgoing McCormack and Dembele II. 

We know from his podcast ramblings that TK's 'hard work' was pretty easy to do with the signings of Mitro and Mawson last summer, for example, and you can then deduce, at your convenience, why that may be.  We also know, although he didn't mention it in the interview ('why?' may be a sensitive question) that Seri was offered to us by Lyons when a deal was being negotiated for MLM since that information is already in the public domain and remains undisputed except for one FOFer who says it wasn't so.  TK doesn't even mention a situation where he went shopping for a modest utility defender and came back with an expensive midfielder in addition?  The reasons why he doesn't touch on the more difficult things he could have mentioned are complex and could range from him having negated them from his mind, or simply saturating our minds with his good points much as a child does to a parent when they feel insecure or just not feeling happy to do so.  He feels on safer ground just to say Ragnar Siggurdson 'didn't work out' (just one of those things), a discovery made for him by his head coach at the time.

I just wish the TK worshippers would have the same sense of balance as they expect of his detractors.  I happen to believe his record is rather on the poor side of mediorcre considering his father would apparently always give him (see TheRationalFan many contributions to this forum for reasons) what he needs in terms of cash, provided the FFP rules are not breached again.  It isn't just the transfer values we should look at it is also the wages.

The big picture is a) what happened since the khans took over and  b) did TK's appointment make any difference.
The answer to a) is we are much worse  making too many obvious errors and then repeating them and b) no difference because the policies have not altered. Last season by 31st august it was apparent despite the money we had assembled a poor unbalanced squad. The only center half arrived and remained injured.

In each of the two previous seasons we had a very thin squad made up of way too many loanees that by a miraclr slav got over the line, just.

It is blazingly apparent, crystal clear, in HD sharp focus the management is very poor in respect ofctransfers and assemblinga squad capable of growing for the future. Listening to TK was depressingbecause he is a nice man, with apparent good intent and not a clue, and because he is in such denial is bound to failagain.

The people that apologise for him do us no favours if they want the same as me which is long term success. The khans will never bring that on the pitch unlss they admit to and then learn from their errors.

I cannot bring myself to believe we will finish top half unless scott turns out to be the same genius level as slav.

[Statto]

The irony is that had he been an imcompetent (non son of owner ) director of football, that in my view would have been alot worse. The question is then would that person have got so much negative attention.

Well Mike "rigor mortis" Rigg brought in Jokanovic and most of our best players from the promotion season (Cairney, Fredericks, Ream and arguably McDonald were Rigg's) on a fraction of the budget Tony Khan had, yet he got, and continues to get, plenty of "negative attention"

[@jolslover]

The irony is that had he been an imcompetent (non son of owner ) director of football, that in my view would have been alot worse. The question is then would that person have got so much negative attention.

Well Mike "rigor mortis" Rigg brought in Jokanovic and most of our best players from the promotion season (Cairney, Fredericks, Ream and arguably McDonald were Rigg's) on a fraction of the budget Tony Khan had, yet he got, and continues to get, plenty of "negative attention"

I don't think Rigg did bring in Jokanovic. Unless I am mistaken, this post is based on a lot of assumptions you don't know as fact. Even so, you listed some positive signings from Rigg but there were a whole load of negatives as well. Before TK took over transfers we nearly went down 2 season in a row. TK come in and we challenged for promotion