News:

Use a VPN to stream games Safely and Securely 🔒
A Virtual Private Network can also allow you to
watch games Not being broadcast in the UK For
more Information and how to Sign Up go to
https://go.nordvpn.net/SH4FE

Main Menu


Tony Khan interview

Started by Fernhurst, August 12, 2019, 08:45:45 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

ALG01

Quote from: Roberty on August 12, 2019, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: ALG01 on August 12, 2019, 07:02:49 PM
Quote from: Roberty on August 12, 2019, 05:47:50 PM
Quote from: ALG01 on August 12, 2019, 05:38:19 PM
having pieced together what TK said.
Levy stitched us up with a late agreement. we all know what levy is like so that should not have been an unforeseen issue
we got a few really good signings this window, but somehow did not manage to get a defender because of Spurs... do me a favour that is delusional of a serial failure as DoF.
In business you are judged purely on results and in that capacity TK should have been removed from post a long time ago. I repeat what I have said over and over and will continue to say, the man would not get a job at any proper professional football club. That much remains the case today and we would be well rid of him despite a better transfer window this time because we are still playing russian roulette because of his failed methods and thinking.
that is not being negative it is merely stating cold hard facts.

Not hard cold fact - just pushing your opinion - yet again - which of course you are entitled to do

well he has blamed spurs for our inability to get a defender or two, that is fact.
he has repeatedly failed, that is fact

getting him to take a side step for the betterment of the team is opinion based on the first three facts.
I did not think it needed spelling out.


and by the way, who else's opinion do i need to push, should I tow the party line. Did you know that inside the stadium and in the cafe before the game and in the concourse, the majority of [people I hear speaking share my view or a very close approximation to it. Just on this MB can you find so many people willing to put up with whatever dross is offered.

so for the good of us all i will continue to speak up. Things could be so much better.
he would not get a job elsewhere, that is fact
It's one fact and one opinion not three facts

Can I take it you would have preferred to give in to Levy and accept less money for RS to get the deal over the line and have time to buy Hector? If so how much less would you have agreed to? You said TK should have known how Levy negotiates and have foreseen the issue of a late deal - TK did - his counter was not to get into FFP problems until the deal was over the line and that forced Levy's hand.

In my opinion Hector is not an upgrade on what we have - he is same-as at best and in my opinion was more likely to be on the bench than a starter - so when you add his fee to the loss you would accept on the RS fee we will have paid the earth for an average CB - in my opinion that was not a bright thing for TK to have done

I did say that you were entitled to your opinion - that is a fact
I don't doubt others agree with you and they're are entitled to do so

As to TK's job prospects - he's not likely to need to apply for one unless America no longer wants to buy car bumpers from his Dad - so again it is not a fact but an opinion that you're entitled to have

Everything written above is my opinion and of course I don't expect anyone to agree with it

I do not know if hector is an upgrade, but IMO we do need an upgrade.
if you choose to think what is easilly observable as an opinion not a fact I will not argue with you as it will become a circular discussion in nature.

I do not think we should accept a penny less than the right price for Ryan. TK has brought in many good players this window, we can all see that. Whether it was his doing or in arter's case, being scott's brother in law is of little concern it was nearly a good window.
What is in question is if he got those players, and they are apparently of the right quality, even I see that why did he not manage to get some defenders and why was that the only position dependent on the money. the point is levy is known for brinkmanship so we should have, IMO, had alternatives lined up. TK seems very quick to get midfielders, and wingers but slow with defenders.
IMO with a bit better defence we could walk the division with the players we now have, however IMO without we could well struggle by season end.

Lighthouse

Quote from: MJG on August 13, 2019, 01:00:36 PM
Quote from: Lighthouse on August 13, 2019, 12:56:15 PM
Quote from: Andy S on August 13, 2019, 11:11:48 AM
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.

When a film director is asked why he cast certain people in a film. He is going to answer in a way that shows him and the film and the actors in the best light. He is advertising and encouraging viewers to come and see his product.  If he just told me how much the tickets were, that would be information. Every time an owner or a Director talks about his organisation he is showing it in its best light. It is an advert for that company whenever he opens his mouth. If people have watched it and thought better of him and the club then the advert was successful.
The above IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT. It is an opinion.

We may yet hear the horse talk.

I can stand my own despair but not others hope

MJG

Quote from: Lighthouse on August 13, 2019, 04:23:38 PM
Quote from: MJG on August 13, 2019, 01:00:36 PM
Quote from: Lighthouse on August 13, 2019, 12:56:15 PM
Quote from: Andy S on August 13, 2019, 11:11:48 AM
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.

When a film director is asked why he cast certain people in a film. He is going to answer in a way that shows him and the film and the actors in the best light. He is advertising and encouraging viewers to come and see his product.  If he just told me how much the tickets were, that would be information. Every time an owner or a Director talks about his organisation he is showing it in its best light. It is an advert for that company whenever he opens his mouth. If people have watched it and thought better of him and the club then the advert was successful.
Sorry but that's just stretching it too much. Its an interview and that it's. So every interview with a manger or player is an advert then?

He is informing everyone of what went on... That's information, it's in the past. He's not advertising whats going to happen in the next window.
Just the views of a long term fan


Lighthouse

Quote from: MJG on August 13, 2019, 04:37:12 PM
Quote from: Lighthouse on August 13, 2019, 04:23:38 PM
Quote from: MJG on August 13, 2019, 01:00:36 PM
Quote from: Lighthouse on August 13, 2019, 12:56:15 PM
Quote from: Andy S on August 13, 2019, 11:11:48 AM
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.

When a film director is asked why he cast certain people in a film. He is going to answer in a way that shows him and the film and the actors in the best light. He is advertising and encouraging viewers to come and see his product.  If he just told me how much the tickets were, that would be information. Every time an owner or a Director talks about his organisation he is showing it in its best light. It is an advert for that company whenever he opens his mouth. If people have watched it and thought better of him and the club then the advert was successful.
Sorry but that's just stretching it too much. Its an interview and that it's. So every interview with a manger or player is an advert then?

He is informing everyone of what went on... That's information, it's in the past. He's not advertising whats going to happen in the next window.

Well we will agree to disagree and they ( football authorities, the club) will continue to charge for 'information' showing their  product in the best light because fans are willing to pay and keep on paying for it. Who knows we may have to start paying to hear propaganda from Governments and companies.  informing us of why we should pay more for their propaganda or 'information'.  Thus squaring the circle.
The above IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT. It is an opinion.

We may yet hear the horse talk.

I can stand my own despair but not others hope

Statto

If this video was pure advertising then no one in their right mind would pay to watch it. Just like no one would pay to have their films interrupted with ads for Andrex and Waitrose. Of course the fact many of us paid for this video, or are so sour that we couldn't watch it without paying, is because it had some value beyond advertising. It was informative, or entertaining, or both.

Also can we have a separate thread for moaning about the paywall rather than commenting on the video itself...
086.gif :hook:

RaySmith

#165
It depends on your viewpoint i suppose.

I choose to think that Tony khan's openness is admirable, something that i haven't usually heard from people in power at FFC. Usually we have been kept i the dark about the why's and wherefores of transfer  dealings, or indeed anything to do with the running of the club.

But others obviously take a more cynical view, and see  everything by those that run the club as having an ulterior motive. Maybe they are right and I am wrong.

Being behind the paywall of subscriber only content  is not that significant for me.
I subscribe mainly to listen to GJ, and it seems a reasonable price to me for this great service, along with the other features you get - in line with most other clubs now, though I know it used to be free.

Obviously people can choose not to sign up for the service, and thus won't be able to watch the interview, but the main content has been discussed ad infintum on here, and  at least some of it will probably surface somewhere or other  as free content.
But fair enough  for those who  criticise this, though I don't think it is as advertising - which would surely be free, because you want as  many people as  possible to see adverts for your business, don't you?

To me, TK is someone who keeps trying to do the right thing, but many  question his motives whatever he does.
But others obviously think differently about him.


Arthur

Quote from: ALG01 on August 13, 2019, 03:35:30 PM
the point is levy is known for brinkmanship so we should have, IMO, had alternatives lined up.

Isn't the point that T.K. is saying the Club hadn't any more money to spend unless Sessegnon was sold - which, ultimately, was Levy's call. If we can't buy until we sell, we can't buy anyone. Having another centre-back lined up doesn't solve that problem. You may believe that the Club had sufficient time to organise the buying of a player, but, if you do, the purchase of Hector is the corollary - not someone else.

Leaving the Hector situation to one side (none of us can be certain where the truth lies), in my opinion, the Club deserves credit for its skilful handling of the transfer window. It clearly had foreseen, from the start of the window, that Levy would try to drive down Sessegnon's fee and had managed the finances of our incoming players so that we weren't forced to sell Ryan in order to comply with FFP. As I read it, it was only when it became evident to Levy that, if he walked away from our valuation, we wouldn't be running after him, we got the deal we ended up with. Well done, Fulham.


toshes mate

Quote from: Arthur on August 13, 2019, 05:32:42 PM
Leaving the Hector situation to one side (none of us can be certain where the truth lies), in my opinion, the Club deserves credit for its skilful handling of the transfer window. It clearly had foreseen, from the start of the window, that Levy would try to drive down Sessegnon's fee and had managed the finances of our incoming players so that we weren't forced to sell Ryan in order to comply with FFP. As I read it, it was only when it became evident to Levy that, if he walked away from our valuation, we wouldn't be running after him, we got the deal we ended up with. Well done, Fulham.
I actually believe the facts that TK mentions which, in order, are deadline-30 days for first interest; deadline-48hrs for derisory offer; deadline-24hrs for negotiation appear to be an acceptable explanation in his view, but may be misleading everyone who listens to that explanation.  What he doesn't and hasn't said is that the Sess deal was delayed by the Onomah element, which was how both BBC and Sky initially reported it in their contemporaneous timelines.  Where did that come from?  I have no idea and I certainly have no way of knowing whether or not TK is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, or just attempting to draw credit from those who dislike Levy.  None of it actually matters in the great scheme of things accept for individual responses to the whole video content.  I accept the video for what it is and it is most certainly not, in my opinion, as believable in the vast majority of its content as many others on here seem to think it is.   


Roberty

#168
Quote from: ALG01 on August 13, 2019, 03:35:30 PM
I do not know if hector is an upgrade, but IMO we do need an upgrade.
if you choose to think what is easily observable as an opinion not a fact I will not argue with you as it will become a circular discussion in nature.

I do not think we should accept a penny less than the right price for Ryan. TK has brought in many good players this window, we can all see that. Whether it was his doing or in Arter's case, being Scott's brother in law is of little concern it was nearly a good window.

What is in question is if he got those players, and they are apparently of the right quality, even I see that why did he not manage to get some defenders and why was that the only position dependent on the money. the point is Levy is known for brinkmanship so we should have, IMO, had alternatives lined up. TK seems very quick to get midfielders, and wingers but slow with defenders.
IMO with a bit better defence we could walk the division with the players we now have, however IMO without we could well struggle by season end.
I'm please to agree to agree

I think TK said his counter to Levy was loan with option to buy as that didn't effect our FFP position and I think he said that he did more of those because of the delay - this would not be an option for the Chelsea player because he is in the last year of his contract and it was buy him or free transfer - so I guess this is why that one went pear shaped.

TK seems to have learnt from the previous promotion, where we just had loans, and hopefully the guys we have brought in will be good enough for the PL and just need augmenting if we do manage to get promoted. This will give us the continuity we didn't have last season and hopefully a better outcome.

As to priorities - I think that once Seri and Anguissa had been sent out on loan out midfield was aging and threadbare and of course what was left of our forwards, after the loans had gone home, were very light weight - so in my opinion those two area were an absolute priority and we seem to have hit the jackpot (I'm living in hope)

The backs are largely what we had before with Bryan instead of Targett and MLM as back up instead of RS. I think Alfie is a definite improvement over Kalas which left Freddo to replace. The stated intention is to give Steven Sessegnon game time and let him develop into Freddo's replacement - it is a strategy that is not without risk but I remember reading somewhere that until he picked up a serious injury a few seasons ago he was in fact a better prospect than Ryan. Time will tell and we will see.

Like you I would like to have covered all of the bases but I do think our backline was not as desperately in need of a major quality upgrade but not signing someone is not without risks.

Who is responsible for any particular signing is not important to me and I think TK referred to the process as being teamwork, what is important was that he was able to sign them up with his Dad's blessing.

Compared to the new guy down the road who is working with a transfer embargo and the loss of their best player before he arrived - SP has the easiest introduction that any manager / head coach could wish for - a benevolent owner and what most people see as a top notch squad - as always with SK failure is not an option and quite rightly because he's been given the tools to succeed.
It could be better but it's real life and not a fantasy


Dr Quinzel

#169
Quote from: SG on August 13, 2019, 02:46:20 PM
£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.

Never thought about watching a full game back that I've already been at personally - would be interested to see what kind of usage that service gets. Maybe more use for our internet/overseas fanbase, but I would have thought more would watch it live than on repeat. Live is something like £10 a month I think?

I wonder how many people who aren't happy about the paywall are local fans who go to the games, so have less use for the service in general? I don't know anyone who has FFCTV for instance; none of my friends I go to games with have seen the interview. Those who are already paying and use it as their lifeline (can't think of a better word) to the club and matchday experience may view the paywall interview differently because of that?



e4b

I often watch a game back that i have been to.Surprising what you can miss at a game.

Dr Quinzel

The full 90? Fair enough. I dont have the patience to watch sport that isn't live over that length of time. I know people who watch nfl matches for hours, studying player by player after a game. I just couldn't do it, but each their own ofcourse.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk



General

Quote from: Statto on August 13, 2019, 05:31:20 PM
If this video was pure advertising then no one in their right mind would pay to watch it. Just like no one would pay to have their films interrupted with ads for Andrex and Waitrose. Of course the fact many of us paid for this video, or are so sour that we couldn't watch it without paying, is because it had some value beyond advertising. It was informative, or entertaining, or both.

Also can we have a separate thread for moaning about the paywall rather than commenting on the video itself...
086.gif :hook:

Technically it is people paying for advertising and brand censorship. It's ridiculous.

Statto

#173
Quote from: Arthur on August 13, 2019, 05:32:42 PM
As I read it, it was only when it became evident to Levy that, if he walked away from our valuation, we wouldn't be running after him, we got the deal we ended up with. Well done, Fulham.

But "the deal we ended up with" was such that, whilst we received a large sum of money, we had no time to spend it. Money you can't spend is essentially worthless. If someone offered me (a) £10 unconditionally, or (b) £1,000,000 on the condition that I can't spend it, I'd take the tenner.

The Rational Fan

#174
Quote from: Statto on August 13, 2019, 11:44:30 PM
Quote from: Arthur on August 13, 2019, 05:32:42 PM
As I read it, it was only when it became evident to Levy that, if he walked away from our valuation, we wouldn't be running after him, we got the deal we ended up with. Well done, Fulham.

But "the deal we ended up with" was such that, whilst we received a large sum of money, we had no time to spend it. Money you can't spend is essentially worthless. If someone offered me (a) £10 unconditionally, or (b) £1,000,000 on the condition that I can't spend it, I'd take the tenner.

We can spend the money in future windows either loaning players in the second half of the season and/or writing players value off (eg Seri to zero) so that when we sell him we make a profit to buy other players.

Importantly, if we are on track for automatic promotion around christmas, we now have the budget to almost injury proof the last half of the season with three more loan signings. SP needs to get the team in the 42 points to 48 points range after 24 games


Roberty

#175
Quote from: Statto on August 13, 2019, 11:44:30 PM
Quote from: Arthur on August 13, 2019, 05:32:42 PM
As I read it, it was only when it became evident to Levy that, if he walked away from our valuation, we wouldn't be running after him, we got the deal we ended up with. Well done, Fulham.

But "the deal we ended up with" was such that, whilst we received a large sum of money, we had no time to spend it. Money you can't spend is essentially worthless. If someone offered me (a) £10 unconditionally, or (b) £1,000,000 on the condition that I can't spend it, I'd take the tenner.

The next time I own you £1m - I will be sure to offer you £10 on the spot

It's not money the club can't spend and in fact they appear to have already spent, all of it and more, on the options to buy.

Having given it some thought I think it was a smart move because the last time round we ended up with loans we couldn't convert and when we brought Mitro in more loan players than we could have in the matchday squad, which of course Brighton knew when we offered to buy Ollie Norwood.

So presumably if we need to fine tune with more loans in January - a PL club my have someone to loan that they would never sell - we can complete some of the options - are Cardiff going to say no to having their golden penny ahead of time - and this time round half of our matchday squad doesn't walk or have their value increased if we do offer to buy because they played so brilliantly in our promotion squad (it will be that or SP fired)
It could be better but it's real life and not a fantasy

I Ronic

Quote from: Statto on August 13, 2019, 11:44:30 PM
Quote from: Arthur on August 13, 2019, 05:32:42 PM
As I read it, it was only when it became evident to Levy that, if he walked away from our valuation, we wouldn't be running after him, we got the deal we ended up with. Well done, Fulham.

But "the deal we ended up with" was such that, whilst we received a large sum of money, we had no time to spend it. Money you can't spend is essentially worthless. If someone offered me (a) £10 unconditionally, or (b) £1,000,000 on the condition that I can't spend it, I'd take the tenner.

Really ? You can't spend the million but what about the interest or your vastly improved credit rating.

toshes mate

Quote from: I Ronic on August 14, 2019, 06:51:19 AM
Quote from: Statto on August 13, 2019, 11:44:30 PM
Quote from: Arthur on August 13, 2019, 05:32:42 PM
As I read it, it was only when it became evident to Levy that, if he walked away from our valuation, we wouldn't be running after him, we got the deal we ended up with. Well done, Fulham.

But "the deal we ended up with" was such that, whilst we received a large sum of money, we had no time to spend it. Money you can't spend is essentially worthless. If someone offered me (a) £10 unconditionally, or (b) £1,000,000 on the condition that I can't spend it, I'd take the tenner.

Really ? You can't spend the million but what about the interest or your vastly improved credit rating.
If that were a factor then it did not do us much good exactly one year ago did it?  (Rhetotical)
Credit rating is an absurd concept that encourages people to spend more than they have the clue being in the word 'credit'.


I Ronic

Quote from: toshes mate on August 14, 2019, 07:38:45 AM
Quote from: I Ronic on August 14, 2019, 06:51:19 AM
Quote from: Statto on August 13, 2019, 11:44:30 PM
Quote from: Arthur on August 13, 2019, 05:32:42 PM
As I read it, it was only when it became evident to Levy that, if he walked away from our valuation, we wouldn't be running after him, we got the deal we ended up with. Well done, Fulham.

But "the deal we ended up with" was such that, whilst we received a large sum of money, we had no time to spend it. Money you can't spend is essentially worthless. If someone offered me (a) £10 unconditionally, or (b) £1,000,000 on the condition that I can't spend it, I'd take the tenner.

Really ? You can't spend the million but what about the interest or your vastly improved credit rating.
If that were a factor then it did not do us much good exactly one year ago did it?  (Rhetotical)
Credit rating is an absurd concept that encourages people to spend more than they have the clue being in the word 'credit'.

Unfortunately Tosh it's part of the world we live in and without it I along with millions of others would never have got on the housing ladder. There has been the odd  period where I spent more than I had, that was my fault.

KingofCheese

I may be wrong but it does appear that those people most against giving the club £5 per month to watch content are also the same who moan at the club for not spending millions upon million on new players every time the window opens. Isn't that like the people who moan about the roads, hospitals and schools who also clap themselves on the back for avoiding tax?
Jullie Kaas is mijn Kaas