Latest FST minutes -26th October 2020

[WestSussexWhite]

On Monday 26 October at 13:00, the Fulham Supporters' Trust met with Fulham FC.

TOPICS DISCUSSED

The following topics were raised and discussed:
Riverside Stand
Pay per View (PPV)
Transfer Window
Project Big Picture
Credit for 19/20 Season Tickets
Black History Month
Other Business
Harvey Elliott
Club app
Technical support
RIVERSIDE STAND

The Trust welcomed the recent video update posted on the Club website, and the interview with the contractor explaining recent and forthcoming activity on the construction of the new stand. Feedback from Trust members had been positive, and the Trust asked that as this was the first update for a couple of months, and that with very visible progress on site, for more similar updates in the period ahead.

With that in mind, the Trust asked what had happened with the webcam to provide real time progress that had previously been discussed. The Club explained that there is not a webcam as the Trust had previously understood, but rather provision for time lapse video (from a camera set up by the contractor) on completion of the project, but the intention was to cover ongoing updates on the website / social media as soon as they occur and milestones have been reached. The Trust encouraged the Club to provide updates as regularly as possible given the interest from supporters who are not able to see progress while attending matches.

The Trust then asked whether the whole stand was now being called the Fulham Pier, and whether in due course naming rights would be sold. We were told that Fulham Pier is the name for the whole destination, and the possibility of naming rights being sold would be considered in the future. The Trust asked that supporters be involved in any final decisions on naming the stand.

In response to questions in relation to the non-matchday uses of the stand and any update on tenants for hospitality and other units, the Club said there was no new information to share.

PAY PER VIEW (PPV)

The Trust pressed the Club on whether it had supported the £14.95 charge for recent non-televised matches. The Club was clear that its primary concern was that there should be some way of supporters viewing all the matches – the £14.95 charge was not set by the Premier League, but proposed by the broadcasters, who hold the rights to show games. Indeed because of competition law the price could not be decided by the Premier League clubs acting together.

Pressed further on the Club's stance, it was stated that Fulham had favoured showing matches on its own platform at a lower price. However, clubs were left with the choice of allowing the broadcasters to set a price or not have the games shown at all.

The Trust reiterated the level of opposition to the £14.95 charge for PPV amongst supporters of all clubs, and cited survey data from Fulham fans and donations to local charities demonstrating that it had become a point of principle for many, who were either accessing alternative streams or actively choosing not to watch their clubs' matches.

The Trust asked whether Fulham were aware of the viewing figures for our games shown on PPV to date, and the Club responded that this information had not been provided to clubs. The Trust asked whether Fulham had asked for that information, and they confirmed they had not done so. The Club also confirmed that there had been no decision made by the Premier League as to how revenue raised from PPV would be distributed.

Asked to explain the stance Fulham would take in Premier League meetings to review the PPV experience, the Club confirmed their view was that games should be made available for supporters to watch while there cannot be attendance at grounds, but it should be at a lower price.

The Trust reiterated that had the Premier League and broadcasters consulted with supporters then this episode could have been avoided, and hoped that was something that would be reflected on for future decisions impacting fans.

Note: At the Premier League meeting on 27 October, clubs agreed to continue PPV arrangements for the first weekend of November, until the international break, pending a further meeting to decide on the approach beyond then.

TRANSFER WINDOW

The Trust asked a number of questions in relation to the most recent transfer window, and the approach to player recruitment taken by the Club. Specifically, the Trust asked:
Are there plans for the Club to have a full time Director of Football, or Assistant Director of Football, to support the Head Coach?

Is the Club satisfied with business undertaken in the transfer window?

How far were Financial Fair Play regulations and recruitment of summer 2018 a limiting factor on activity in this window?

While previously stating a desire to be less reliant on loans, we have more loan players than other Premier League clubs – why is that?

Were options to sign on-loan players more obligation than option – and what is the reason for purchasing players on long term deals and then loaning them out?

Why did it take until the end of the window to sign defensive players?

Do the Club consider that we have enough cover in forward positions to cover potential injuries, suspensions, or poor form?
In discussion, the Club answered that:
The whole team, of which the Head Coach was an integral part, were pleased, with both the quality and balance of the players acquired during the window; including that the Head Coach was satisfied with his attacking options.

There were two reasons why some players came in close to the end of the window; firstly and very noticeably prices had dropped as the deadline approached so the Club got much better value for money; secondly the Head Coach had wanted to give those who had secured promotion an opportunity to show whether they could step up to the Premier League – this was important in keeping the squad united.

They had however tried to secure at least one defender earlier in the window but prices were far too high in terms of value; a number of players had failed medicals and subsequent negotiations with the selling club had not resulted in agreement; and one player who said he was going to sign changed his mind at the last moment; but they had secured defenders who were either not available earlier in the window or who were unreasonably expensive for earlier deals.

The 25 finally in the squad were chosen by the Head Coach who felt he had sufficient cover in all positions and sufficient quality to avoid relegation.

They had tried to move on some of the players not in the 25, but perhaps because of Covid, players and their families were unwilling to move to new countries, even though deals had been agreed; the only exceptions to this were players for whom the Club had managed to secure loan moves within the Championship, so they could play some football, given they might well not make the 25 player squad.

The overall approach had been a mixture of buying players at good prices that could serve Fulham well for many years, some loan players where the cost of straight purchase was too high or the losing Club just would not sell (eg Lookman), and a few players who were loaned with an option to buy, hence spreading the cost for Financial Fair Play purposes.

The Club had been constrained, in terms of Financial Fair Play, by purchases made to secure promotion, but this was not an unduly limiting consideration.
The Trust asked whether there would be a reconsideration on the need for a full-time UK based Director of Football, and whether it was intended to replace Javier Periera. The Club said that Fulham had a full-time UK based Head of Recruitment and that Javier, with his experience, had been brought in to help particularly with the push for promotion. When he understandably left to fulfil his ambition to be a Head Coach, the decision had been made to invest the saved salary in a new additional first team coach (Nathan Gardiner from Tottenham) and in some more sports science support, as requested by the Head Coach.

The Club reiterated that whilst the approach to transfers is evolving, both as a result of experience and the changing dynamics of the market, the overall "four boxes ticked" approach remains in place, with analytics, the recruitment team and the financial oversight, working closely together to meet the requirements of the Head Coach.

PROJECT BIG PICTURE

The Trust made clear its opposition to the Big Picture concept and asked for the Club view. The Club responded that they were appalled at nearly all aspects of the proposals and had voiced their concerns forcibly. Fulham did feel the Premier League needed to look at itself, and supported the inquiry being led by its Chair, albeit they had not yet seen terms of reference. A red line for the Club was the principle of one club, one vote,

Asked whether supporters should be consulted in this inquiry, or in the government inquiry that had also been promised, the Club agreed that all stakeholders should be involved.

The Club also wanted to support League 1 and League 2 clubs more, but were less sure about the level of support needed for the Championship where, on a par with the Premier League, there were a number of wealthy owners who were supporting their clubs eg in the transfer market. The Club confirmed that the year two parachute payment that was no longer due to Fulham because of promotion could usefully be added to any pot for League 1 and League 2 Clubs, but that was a matter for the Premier League collectively rather than Fulham specifically. 

CREDIT FOR 19/20 SEASON TICKETS

The Trust and the Club raised the prospect of attendances being allowed before the end of the season. While the Club shared the wider disappointment that despite social distancing arrangements being prepared, supporters would not be able to attend games in the near future, they remained hopeful that this might be possible in the spring and would continue to lobby via the Premier League and football authorities for this to be permitted, subject to public health advice.

The Trust explained that some 19/20 Season Ticket holders who had opted for credit in lieu of refund when it was anticipated that season tickets would be sold had asked that refunds be offered now it seemed less likely that they could purchase tickets this season. Some had also indicated their personal situation had changed as a result of the wider economic impact of the pandemic.

The Trust had asked both its members who had opted for a credit, and the wider fanbase through a Twitter poll, and both showed that the majority were content for the credit to remain with the Club (64% of season ticket holders); 5% now wanted to donate their credit to the Fulham Foundation; but nearly a third would like to be refunded.

The Trust requested that anyone wanting a refund should now be able to have one or donate to the Foundation if they wished. The Club said that where supporters had asked for a refund, that had been provided, but agreed that given the changing situation, this was something that could be communicated to those who had previously opted for a credit.

Any season ticket holder wanting a refund, or preferring to donate to the Foundation, an option which the Club would very much welcome, should email [email protected]

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

Eleanor Rowland joined the meeting, as requested by the Trust, to set out the programme of activity to mark Black History Month. It was explained, which the Trust supported, that the activity was an important element of what was a longer term and agreed wide-ranging diversity and equality strategy, aimed at improving participation across a range of characteristics, amongst staff, supporters, and participants.

A range of activities internally and externally had been organised, including webinars, articles on the web site, discussion groups and external speakers, including Leroy Rosenior and Luis Boa Morte. These had been very well attended and received – but the key was to progress longer term change in many aspects of participation. The Club was pleased now to be working as well with Anwar Uddin from the Fans for Diversity campaign.

The Trust welcomed and fully supported the Club's approach, which complemented the Trust's own activity which was also gathering pace. Both the Club and the Trust agreed to keep in touch as ideas developed.

OTHER BUSINESS
Harvey Elliott - The Trust asked whether there was any news on the incredibly long drawn out process to secure a fee for Harvey Elliott. The Club responded that unfortunately there was no set timescale for resolution, and they too were frustrated, although it might help Fulham's case to see Harvey doing well at Blackburn Rovers, so delay was not all bad. Asked if a settlement could not be secured outside of a Tribunal the Club responded that the current offer on the table from Liverpool was a long way short of Fulham's valuation;

Club app - The Trust asked about progress with the new app. The Club responded that they anticipated a release in November, but as with all developments of this nature, this was subject to change.

Technical support - The Trust reported occasional technical problems for members eg with Fulham TV, and the Club agreed to investigate specific complaints, which were passed on by the Trust. Supporters should however address issues going forward directly with [email protected].
The meeting closed.

[FulhamStu]

Surely this puts to bed once and for all those who insist that the coach is not very involved in transfers.   Or do you think the club are just lying ?   Very open response to the questions, interesting about the comments saying value was much better towards end of the window and early transfer prices quoted were highly inflated.   We might have rich owners but the club have to work within financial restrictions for many reasons.  Too many people are too quick to criticise without knowing any facts.

[Fulham1959]

Thank you for these Minutes - well written.

[Statto]

Fair play to the trust for asking those questions about transfers. The club's "answers" (and I'm being generous describing them as such) unfortunately tell us nothing, but that was to be expected.

[General]

Surely this puts to bed once and for all those who insist that the coach is not very involved in transfers.   Or do you think the club are just lying ?   Very open response to the questions, interesting about the comments saying value was much better towards end of the window and early transfer prices quoted were highly inflated.   We might have rich owners but the club have to work within financial restrictions for many reasons.  Too many people are too quick to criticise without knowing any facts.

Sadly not at all. People in these settings can just state the party line when it's a sensitive matter. There has to be a degree of trust to have openess or a lack of conflict. The statements all around our transfers have all been very similar across a number of people within the club to the point they even use similar turns of phrase and key words. This would suggest it is still prompted to a degree. There was one signing we made, I can't remember off the top of my head - perhaps Ola Aina who when asked if he had spoken to Scott said something along the lines of 'not a lot actually', but then seemed to change that stance quite quickly to suggest he had spoken enough - in my views two contrasting statements. I definitely get the impression that TK has brought people into line. As he said himself, the only player he's bought in who didn't meet the stats was Onomah, which obviously proved to be invaluable for us at the club.

If he continued to recruit on personal references and first hand knowledge (as is case in most clubs) then, well it'd simply destroy all his data (which in fairness our last relegation proved to be redundant)... but some people just want to think they're right.

[RaySmith]

Surely this puts to bed once and for all those who insist that the coach is not very involved in transfers.   Or do you think the club are just lying ?   Very open response to the questions, interesting about the comments saying value was much better towards end of the window and early transfer prices quoted were highly inflated.   We might have rich owners but the club have to work within financial restrictions for many reasons.  Too many people are too quick to criticise without knowing any facts.

0001.jpeg

[copthornemike]

Credit to the FST and the club for these meetings & the transparency in terms of the meeting minutes.
However the long running Harvey Elliott response does suggest a lack of leadership & assertiveness by the club hierarchy.
All very well going on about FFP but surely this saga adversely affects FFC in terms of FFP - although I do appreciate that the poor American paupers and owners at Liverpool need to reduce expenditure to enhance their tiny dividend payouts.
So is the club stance that any young players coming through our expensive academy should be able to move over to a richer, bigger & better resourced club for nothing?
Disgraceful all round.

[The Rational Fan]

Fair play to the trust for asking those questions about transfers. The club's "answers" (and I'm being generous describing them as such) unfortunately tell us nothing, but that was to be expected.

You ask a stupid question, then you get a stupid answer. Every decision was thought to be the right one at the time, and unless the recruitment team provide a list of alternative decisions the recruitment team could have made no one will really know if they were the right decisions. It seems like some fans want TK to tell the fans what were the other options available, so they can assess whether TK choose the right players, but even if the list of alternative players was even worse, I doubt that would satify the fans. Some fans are convinced the alternative to Tony Khan is amazing, but alternative could make the Venkys look like good owners.

[FulhamStu]

Surely this puts to bed once and for all those who insist that the coach is not very involved in transfers.   Or do you think the club are just lying ?   Very open response to the questions, interesting about the comments saying value was much better towards end of the window and early transfer prices quoted were highly inflated.   We might have rich owners but the club have to work within financial restrictions for many reasons.  Too many people are too quick to criticise without knowing any facts.

Sadly not at all. People in these settings can just state the party line when it's a sensitive matter. There has to be a degree of trust to have openess or a lack of conflict. The statements all around our transfers have all been very similar across a number of people within the club to the point they even use similar turns of phrase and key words. This would suggest it is still prompted to a degree. There was one signing we made, I can't remember off the top of my head - perhaps Ola Aina who when asked if he had spoken to Scott said something along the lines of 'not a lot actually', but then seemed to change that stance quite quickly to suggest he had spoken enough - in my views two contrasting statements. I definitely get the impression that TK has brought people into line. As he said himself, the only player he's bought in who didn't meet the stats was Onomah, which obviously proved to be invaluable for us at the club.

If he continued to recruit on personal references and first hand knowledge (as is case in most clubs) then, well it'd simply destroy all his data (which in fairness our last relegation proved to be redundant)... but some people just want to think they're right.

Well I don't think what anyone says will change your mind.  The club stated repeatedly that the coach is an integral part of the recruitment process, not that it was all down to him.  The process of 4 ticks has been stated and re-stared time and again and is pretty clear to me so I can't understand why we can't all understand it.
The statement clearly says we were constrained by FFP so needed value, a player we were about to sign changed his mind, some player, (Andersen) only became available late on and Parker felt we were ok in attack (I don't agree and suspect on reflection he would like more up front now).   I really don't know what more you can expect, yes we would all like a UK based dedicated, experienced, brilliant DOF but it is what it is. 

[RaySmith]

Surely this puts to bed once and for all those who insist that the coach is not very involved in transfers.   Or do you think the club are just lying ?   Very open response to the questions, interesting about the comments saying value was much better towards end of the window and early transfer prices quoted were highly inflated.   We might have rich owners but the club have to work within financial restrictions for many reasons.  Too many people are too quick to criticise without knowing any facts.

Sadly not at all. People in these settings can just state the party line when it's a sensitive matter. There has to be a degree of trust to have openess or a lack of conflict. The statements all around our transfers have all been very similar across a number of people within the club to the point they even use similar turns of phrase and key words. This would suggest it is still prompted to a degree. There was one signing we made, I can't remember off the top of my head - perhaps Ola Aina who when asked if he had spoken to Scott said something along the lines of 'not a lot actually', but then seemed to change that stance quite quickly to suggest he had spoken enough - in my views two contrasting statements. I definitely get the impression that TK has brought people into line. As he said himself, the only player he's bought in who didn't meet the stats was Onomah, which obviously proved to be invaluable for us at the club.

If he continued to recruit on personal references and first hand knowledge (as is case in most clubs) then, well it'd simply destroy all his data (which in fairness our last relegation proved to be redundant)... but some people just want to think they're right.

Well I don't think what anyone says will change your mind.  The club stated repeatedly that the coach is an integral part of the recruitment process, not that it was all down to him.  The process of 4 ticks has been stated and re-stared time and again and is pretty clear to me so I can't understand why we can't all understand it.
The statement clearly says we were constrained by FFP so needed value, a player we were about to sign changed his mind, some player, (Andersen) only became available late on and Parker felt we were ok in attack (I don't agree and suspect on reflection he would like more up front now).   I really don't know what more you can expect, yes we would all like a UK based dedicated, experienced, brilliant DOF but it is what it is. 

Yes , TK heads a 4 tick process, in which the manager, and other experienced staff are involved, and TK, the owner's son is DoF heading the team, and presumably  has to sign off potential new signings, though doesn't choose them all himself.

It is what it is - The khans own the club,  and are prepared to put a  lot of money into the club, though constrained ny FFP, and we all know that we  could have a lot worse owners - you could have -

1 owners not prepared or unable to  invest much in the club apart from the   great deal of money it must take just to keep it going, and likely running out of  funds along the  line, and the club going bankrupt, doing a Bolton or Wigan, and  do people think Fulham is immune to that?

or 2 - owners deliberately wanting to exploit the club  for their own ends, as we have bitter experience of at Fulham with Marler Estates, Eric Miller and Ernie Clay.

[toshes mate]

As someone who has attended very high level meetings, read and checked the minutes , and commented upon them, I can assure people that language is the most damned ambiguous thing humans' ever invented.  Agreement to words and their choice amounts to the common sense rule that you are not going to find a choice of words that explains things exactly as they happened, and so minutes are never intended as anything other than a matter of record.  If you want better explanation then you interview attendees and put together their recollections (if they have any!!!) and form a mental picture of what may have happened.   

And  to those who believe this puts to bed any notion of discord or misrepresentation I would remind them of those heavenly romantic stories of love marriage and family upbringing that end in the tragic deaths of several of the players by hands unknown until the end of the narrative reveals all.  Of course these are always fictional and never based upon truth are they not?

[Deeping_white]

Credit to the FST and the club for these meetings & the transparency in terms of the meeting minutes.
However the long running Harvey Elliott response does suggest a lack of leadership & assertiveness by the club hierarchy.
All very well going on about FFP but surely this saga adversely affects FFC in terms of FFP - although I do appreciate that the poor American paupers and owners at Liverpool need to reduce expenditure to enhance their tiny dividend payouts.
So is the club stance that any young players coming through our expensive academy should be able to move over to a richer, bigger & better resourced club for nothing?
Disgraceful all round.

The club can do nothing about the Harvey Elliot scenario, that farce lies with the FA tribunals that take a stupid amount of time to set up and make a judgement

[MJG]

As someone who spent 4 years attending these meetings and also for my sins being the notetaker and writer of them it's a difficult balancing act of getting down the question asked and how it was answered in a clear and concise way. They are never a verbatim recording of the meetings but you do try to use the exact language used in answers by the club.

I've said it before all you can do is ask the questions and challenge the answers where needed which they certainly did in my time.

Some of the meeting is off the record at times and not for public consumption but if ever there was something that we felt was required to be heard by the fans, it was.

My time is over with the FST and I wish some of the current board all the best in their endeavors. I won't be going back to it anytime soon unless some things change (and if I stand and get voted on of course) but its still a useful organization and the club do listen and sometimes take on board what we say.

[JimOG]

Thank you for these Minutes - well written.

+1 very clear & concise

[Statto]

Looks like this thread is splitting along the usual party lines...

The "sheep" as they're unkindly referred to by some on Twitter who are prepared to overlook TK's antics - the Twitter spats, the police at Motspur Park, the men in spandex, the spectacular relegations etc - and accept vague, hackneyed platitudes like "the head coach is an integral part of the team" as proof that all is ok, despite other facts (not to mention our performance on the pitch) suggesting otherwise.

And on the other side, those who, as FulhamStu puts it, will "never change their mind" about TK, because they can't let those issues go.

I suppose I have to admit falling more into the latter camp but I think it perfectly reasonable, reading these minutes, to feel that the club has dismissed out of hand the suggestion that we might do better with a full-time DoF, failed to explain the inconsistency of us previously stating a desire to be less reliant on loans and now having loads of loan players, failed to explain us exercising the "option" to buy Knockaert just to loan him out a couple of months later (we all know it wasn't an "option" but it would have been good of them to explain that) and repeated the same questionable excuses for it taking until the end of the window to sign defensive players.

[toshes mate]

"The Trust asked whether there would be a reconsideration on the need for a full-time UK based Director of Football, and whether it was intended to replace Javier Periera. The Club said that Fulham had a full-time UK based Head of Recruitment and that Javier, with his experience, had been brought in to help particularly with the push for promotion."

Is this an interesting example of how language can be abused? 

It is noted that on 29.1.2020 the Club officially stated that "In his role, Javier will work closely with Tony Khan on football business matters including talent identification and development but his primary focus will be on embedding the Club's playing philosophy through all Fulham's teams, from youth level to the First Team, ensuring the attractive play Fulham is famous for is exemplified throughout the Club."

Tony Khan commented "I am truly delighted to welcome Javier back to Fulham! I'm thrilled that he's agreed to join my staff, and I'm looking forward to working with him and striving to build a sustainable winning programme. I know Javier well from his time at the Club, and we remained in contact after he left. We share the same vision for Fulham and the same philosophy of football, and we'll work together to apply that shared vision to deliver success. I have the utmost respect in Javier's abilities, he's a true football man, understands our Club, and is up for the challenge."

Nowhere does the official announcement in January suggest this role was a) short term; b) a push for promotion since, at the time, FFC finishing in the top two was not too far away from expectations.  For sure Javier moved on to better things but is that a reason not to replace him like for like?  And whatever happened to the highlighted paragraph of primary focus I have emboldened above in the sudden change of direction to an additional assistant coach and sport's science support to Scott Parker when our Director of Football is not full time or UK-based?

Who is kidding who?

[MJG]

My view on Javier joining when he did was as backup(for head coach) in case things started going wrong during the run into the end of the season.

We were 4th when he joined, previous 6 games made us 7th on form and less than convincing.  Previous 10 we were 12th on form with 11 goals for and against over that period.

Maybe had nothing to do with it, but he soon left after the job of promotion was finished.

[toshes mate]

That may well be closer to the truth, MJG, and I would not disagree with you, but my main point is the deliberate blurring of a question about a full time Director of Football being answered by having a full time UK-based Head of Recruitment implying they are now Acting Director of Football, given the part time and absentee DoF.

[MJG]

That may well be closer to the truth, MJG, and I would not disagree with you, but my main point is the deliberate blurring of a question about a full time Director of Football being answered by having a full time UK-based Head of Recruitment implying they are now Acting Director of Football, given the part time and absentee DoF.

I agree, when put together it does not add up. But then again that sums up a lot of whats going on. Things being done on the spur of the moment wuith no real basis of a plan.