Tony Khan interview

[copthornemike]

It would appear that TK ultimately achieved all that he could regarding Ryan so well done him I say.
I can see future interactions with Levy so not being seen as a 'soft touch' can only be a good thing.
My concern is that if Scott Parker will be an obvious target for Levy when Pochetino decides to go to Spain or wherever - that could become a serious tug of war which I cannot see us winning!

[Andy S]

People seem to think everything to do with the internet should be free. Why? You pay your internet provider  but do not want to pay the people who provide the information. It's not an arm and a leg and you won't die without it so let it go

[Sting of the North]

TK has all the latitude in the world and not only because his dad owns the whole show with him. 

He can choose when he talks, how he talks, and who his chosen audience is.  It is the last point that is most significant.  Anyone who talks fast is addressing themselves to people with the sole aim of selling something be it themselves, a product, or both – it is the classic salesperson technique.  And so is Tony guilty of ignoring and/or disrespecting of all those who would like to hear him talk slowly and sensibly about his role at FFC?   We are not all gullible young folk.   We are not all hero worshippers who will pay money just to be a part of a cult.   The cult was already there long before he came along.

Is he addressing those with disposable incomes that'll hook to FFCTV and perhaps buy the live streams or, if possible, attend games?  If so then that's an advert behind a paywall which ignores all those who absolutely have contributed to FFC already but choose not to buy FFCTV and he is simply talking up himself and encouraging you to buy into his product.

I am not ashamed to say that I really object to what I believe is TK's patent disrespectful attitude to large numbers of FFC followers.

For publically listed clubs (like Arsenal and Celtic) "investor information" cannot be behind a paywall (such as information given by the owner, co-owner, ceo or chief financial officer), while all "customer entertainment" can be behind a paywall (such as interviews with players, games and photos).

It is clear supporters consider themselves part investors in the club, even though legally at Fulham the supporters (apart from the Khans) aren't investors, I think the club should treat all supporters as entitled to receive all publically available "investor information". So anything that involves where the club is INVESTING should be public and anything that is ENTERTAINMENT can be behind a paywall.

Since this was obviously not investor information your argument just comes down to your personal preference. It would have been quicker to just state that you think it should be free of charge because the fans deserve it.

[Bill2]

Good to see he told Levy to get lost with his normal antics over Ryan Sess transfer. It would appear that a number of clubs are getting fed up with his usual transfer antics.

[MJG]

Should the Programme be free?

[Arthur]

Should the Programme be free?

An interesting parallel.

If not free, the principle dictates the programme should be no more than cost price, does it not?

Yet I've never seen anyone complain that the Club are withholding the Chairman's/Manager's/Captain's views from supporters in order to make money from them.

[Matt10]

In terms of the interview being behind a paywall, I do not necessarily agree that it should be. I think if it were promoted on the site as "Bonus Content" then maybe. However, this does not seem to be Bonus Content as it is information that should be available for everyone to see, and hear from TK directly.

I think they did a good job at integrating the paywall from ffctv though. There have been issues with it not pulling the right login information at times, so it is good to see that the service is getting better. However, I think if they wanted to test that integration, it should be done with another video feature instead.

[Lighthouse]

People seem to think everything to do with the internet should be free. Why? You pay your internet provider  but do not want to pay the people who provide the information. It's not an arm and a leg and you won't die without it so let it go

There is advertising on the Internet. Or you pay a subscription. But in no other industry do they charge you for advertising their product which is what the interviews etc are. The FFCTV and radio behind a paywall is annoying but understandable. But when they are advertising their own product it seems that putting it behind a paywall is alienating their customers. I am happy to do without but will continue to complain about it. However the comparison you make just doesn't add up with me. The fact that it isn't expensive is what people once said about the programme. Now those picking one up has declined.

[MJG]

People seem to think everything to do with the internet should be free. Why? You pay your internet provider  but do not want to pay the people who provide the information. It's not an arm and a leg and you won't die without it so let it go

There is advertising on the Internet. Or you pay a subscription. But in no other industry do they charge you for advertising their product which is what the interviews etc are. The FFCTV and radio behind a paywall is annoying but understandable. But when they are advertising their own product it seems that putting it behind a paywall is alienating their customers. I am happy to do without but will continue to complain about it. However the comparison you make just doesn't add up with me. The fact that it isn't expensive is what people once said about the programme. Now those picking one up has declined.

I would not call this interview advertising. Information, but not an advert.

[KingofCheese]

Great interview thank you Tony. I think in Tony and his Dad we have two really interested and caring owners who will put this club first. For those people always criticising the owners because of assumed faults or mistakes I would suggest you have a look around at other clubs and see we are fantastically well off. These aren't absentee owners nor people trying to get as much money out of the club and leave it broken - Coventry, York etc anyone? I think that Tony has given a very clear answer as to why things happened the way they did and I am happy that he talks personally to the likes of Stephen to talk about that player's future and gives our youth a chance. Great team, great owners and great fans. COYWs

[KingofCheese]

People seem to think everything to do with the internet should be free. Why? You pay your internet provider  but do not want to pay the people who provide the information. It's not an arm and a leg and you won't die without it so let it go

There is advertising on the Internet. Or you pay a subscription. But in no other industry do they charge you for advertising their product which is what the interviews etc are. The FFCTV and radio behind a paywall is annoying but understandable. But when they are advertising their own product it seems that putting it behind a paywall is alienating their customers. I am happy to do without but will continue to complain about it. However the comparison you make just doesn't add up with me. The fact that it isn't expensive is what people once said about the programme. Now those picking one up has declined.

Mate £5 quid a month - well worth it in my humble opinion.

[Whitesideup]

People seem to think everything to do with the internet should be free. Why? You pay your internet provider  but do not want to pay the people who provide the information. It's not an arm and a leg and you won't die without it so let it go

There is advertising on the Internet. Or you pay a subscription. But in no other industry do they charge you for advertising their product which is what the interviews etc are. The FFCTV and radio behind a paywall is annoying but understandable. But when they are advertising their own product it seems that putting it behind a paywall is alienating their customers. I am happy to do without but will continue to complain about it. However the comparison you make just doesn't add up with me. The fact that it isn't expensive is what people once said about the programme. Now those picking one up has declined.

I would not call this interview advertising. Information, but not an advert.

I agree that TK's interview is not advertising. I can see both sides of the argument, but a very salient and relevant point is that we have to pay for a programme. And I struggle to see how FFC Tv is that different.

[toshes mate]

A programme does at least have an intrinsic value which is not true of a twenty minute video about TK and the magic of his tongue, unless you believe in magic that is.

[Tabby]

A programme does at least have an intrinsic value which is not true of a twenty minute video about TK and the magic of his tongue, unless you believe in magic that is.

Does going to a football game have any intrinsic value? It is just two hours of watching people run around after a ball and you don't get anything tangible to sell on.

Sounds like a racket to me.

[toshes mate]

A programme does at least have an intrinsic value which is not true of a twenty minute video about TK and the magic of his tongue, unless you believe in magic that is.

Does going to a football game have any intrinsic value? It is just two hours of watching people run around after a ball and you don't get anything tangible to sell on.

Sounds like a racket to me.

It's live and anything can (and usually does) happen and you are getting the full, unedited and unexpurgated version.  Sounds like it could be entertaining in one sense or the other ... unlike a twenty minute video of TK etc.

[Finnans Right Peg]

I think it should be free to season ticket holders as a thank you but overall 5 quid a month is not breaking the bank

[MJG]

I think it should be free to season ticket holders as a thank you but overall 5 quid a month is not breaking the bank

Lets say as a ST holder I dont want it, is there an argument that I should get £60 back as I never use it?

[SG]

£45 a year - less than £4 a month - to watch all 46 Fulham games in full, relatively soon after the day of the game, is in my view a bargain. Many of the interviews are nothing to write home about but being able to watch every game is great value - £1 a game.

[Sting of the North]

A programme does at least have an intrinsic value which is not true of a twenty minute video about TK and the magic of his tongue, unless you believe in magic that is.

Does going to a football game have any intrinsic value? It is just two hours of watching people run around after a ball and you don't get anything tangible to sell on.

Sounds like a racket to me.

It's live and anything can (and usually does) happen and you are getting the full, unedited and unexpurgated version.  Sounds like it could be entertaining in one sense or the other ... unlike a twenty minute video of TK etc.

Is your argument here that it should be free because you subjectively do not consider it to be entertaining? Btw I agree that it would be a nice and sympathetic move of the club to provide stuff like this for free, but I am not sure I see the big problem. This could of course have something to do with me having the international season pass anyway since I am unfortunately almost never able to attend the games, so I admit that I might have had a slightly altered perspective otherwise.

[Matt10]

£45 a year - less than £4 a month - to watch all 46 Fulham games in full, relatively soon after the day of the game, is in my view a bargain. Many of the interviews are nothing to write home about but being able to watch every game is great value - £1 a game.

FFCTV is much better than iFollow like some clubs use. I tried to watch StefJo at West Brom last year, and it was quite difficult to maneuver to the match centre, which 1) had the score, spoilers and 2) had multiple tabs to sift through.

Thankfully, FFCTV is set up independently, and the commentary of GJ is synced perfectly. The 90-minutes archived since 2014 matches is brilliant as well. Totally worth it.