Is it time

[Dougie]

lets also not forget :

Dennis Odoi
Sony Aluko
Kevin Mcdonald
Floyd Ayite
AK
Stef Jo
Joe Bryan
TC
Mitrovic
Rodak
Betts
BDR
Aerola
Lookman
plus many more
all quality signings

Odoi, Aluko, MacDonald, Ayite, Johansen, and Cairney were all signed whilst Mike Rigg was Chief Football Officer, and before TK became DoF.

Bettinelli and Rodak are academy graduates so their inclusion is odd.

Joe Bryan was signed to play in the Premiership and failed to make the grade, like every permanent signing in 18/19 with the exception of Mitrovic.

BDR was signed roughly at a market value, whilst Cav and Knockaert were signed for fees massively beyond their value to the club. Knockaert is essentialyl a toxic asset at this point.

Areola and Lookman were adequate loan signings.

So...whatever you are trying to demonstrate with this incoherent list, you are failing to do so.

[Deeping_white]

lets also not forget :

Dennis Odoi
Sony Aluko
Kevin Mcdonald
Floyd Ayite
AK
Stef Jo
Joe Bryan
TC
Mitrovic
Rodak
Betts
BDR
Aerola
Lookman
plus many more
all quality signings

Odoi, Aluko, MacDonald, Ayite, Johansen, and Cairney were all signed whilst Mike Rigg was Chief Football Officer, and before TK became DoF.

Bettinelli and Rodak are academy graduates so their inclusion is odd.

Joe Bryan was signed to play in the Premiership and failed to make the grade, like every permanent signing in 18/19 with the exception of Mitrovic.

BDR was signed roughly at a market value, whilst Cav and Knockaert were signed for fees massively beyond their value to the club. Knockaert is essentialyl a toxic asset at this point.

Areola and Lookman were adequate loan signings.

So...whatever you are trying to demonstrate with this incoherent list, you are failing to do so.

You lose all credibility to your argument when you call Areola and Lookman adequate loan signings considering one was the best keeper we've had in years and arguably one of the best we've ever had, and Lookman was better than all of our attackers combined until Parker coached any inventiveness out of him

[jayffc]

lets also not forget :

Dennis Odoi
Sony Aluko
Kevin Mcdonald
Floyd Ayite
AK
Stef Jo
Joe Bryan
TC
Mitrovic
Rodak
Betts
BDR
Aerola
Lookman
plus many more
all quality signings

I think we'll agree to disagree on AK.

Rodak, I thought was academy?

Don't really want to bother getting into argument about TK. He's Mr Wonderful according to some, Satanic spawn per some others.

I like to think myself slightly more reasoned on him. But I'm probably not.

Poor relationship with coaches and not overly well thought of with football people I've spoken with. Craig Kline.

Some far better stuff recently. Some saying this due to him less involved. Maybe true, maybe not.

Shad seemed hands on with the appointment of Silva as he was with Slav. Hopefully a good omen.

I dont know that I see that many people saying hes "Mr Wonderful", I think it's mostly from what I see, people who think he's done some great stuff and have been pleased with the recent transfer windows generally speaking in terms of assembling competitive squads... but also admittedly can see he's made some mistakes along the way aswell ...but just dont feel the need to crucify him for every single one or deny him any credit when its gone well.

Id say we see more extreme vitriol from some than we see blind adoration as though he's unquestionably brilliant. Though I consider myself someone capable of critical thought and willing to see the positives and negatives all angles considered.

Anyway
back to the songs which people can or cant sing ha

The recent tash one works for me ha

[Dougie]

It is knit-picking....to the enth degree and it's rightly being called out.

Wrong. Knit picking is focusing on tiny, unimportant details. Demonstrating that the overwhelming majority of our transfer expenditure under TK has been spent on players who are poor value for money isn't a tiny, unimportant detail. It's absolutely central to the dispute.

If I'm talking about Fonte, Cisse and Kamara in the Summer 2017 window, I'm talking about the majority of our transfer expenditure that window. If I talk about Anguissa, Seri, Bryan and Mawson, I'm talking about the majority of our expenditure in the 2018 window, and if I talk about Cav, Knockaert and Reid, I'm talking about the majority of our transfer extenditure in the 2019 window.

Most of what it boils down to is, Were the likes of Seri a 25m player *when we bought* him...well if you recall at the time it was a resounding yes... courted by Barca, pundits and fans frothing about it.

Neither fans nor articles linking a player to a club determine the market value of a player. Swansea had offered £15m a year previously. Villarreal offered us £22.5m for Anguissa. These are both substantially lower valuations than we paid for them.

So easy to call it a waste after the fact, you have to make these calls up front. Cav and Knock came with big reputations at champ level, all you can do is provide a squad with either proven quality or potential for more in the moment, and that's what he did. When we first signed Cav and Knock we all were licking our lips at a front 3 of Mitro Cav and Knock

Is it the job of recruitment to sign players who will perform well and provide a strong return on investment, or to sign players on "reputation"? If you think it's the former then Cav and Knockaert are disastrous signing. And it is the former, incidentally.
I personally hold him accountable on how well those players perform for us when they're signed vs. their cost to the club. Almost like it's the role of recruitment to cut through the guff and hype and actually have good judgment. Crazy thought and all that.

[Dougie]

You lose all credibility to your argument when you call Areola and Lookman adequate loan signings considering one was the best keeper we've had in years and arguably one of the best we've ever had, and Lookman was better than all of our attackers combined until Parker coached any inventiveness out of him

We paid Areola £4m of wages and PSG an unspecified loan fee, so "arguably one of the best we've ever had" is merely getting bang for our buck (unlike Tosin and Robinson, which are a genuine example of generating value in the transfer market). Pointing out that Lookman started strong before fading doesn't refute my assessment of his signing.

[perry geyton]

The Khans had a dream to build a football team

They spent their money and built us our new home....

with Ream at the back Mitro in attack

we're Fulham FC we're on our way back
do do do do do

He's big,  He's flash
He wears a big moustach
Shahid Khan , Shahid Khan

that's the one !!

[Deeping_white]

You lose all credibility to your argument when you call Areola and Lookman adequate loan signings considering one was the best keeper we've had in years and arguably one of the best we've ever had, and Lookman was better than all of our attackers combined until Parker coached any inventiveness out of him

We paid Areola £4m of wages and PSG an unspecified loan fee, so "arguably one of the best we've ever had" is merely getting bang for our buck (unlike Tosin and Robinson, which are a genuine example of generating value in the transfer market). Pointing out that Lookman started strong before fading doesn't refute my assessment of his signing.

Why does paying Areola £4m make any difference whatsoever? He commands a higher wage because he's a very good player, congrats on pointing out how market forces work. Our actual goals conceded against expected were so far out based on him performing like a world class keeper and his heroics almost gave us a chance at staying up, so statistically and subjectively he was a fantastic signing let down by the rest of the team, or did you expect him to chip in with a few goals as well to make him a "good" loan signing? My point on Lookman completely refuted your point because he was a very good player who regressed under the cardigan botherer, like the vast majority of players we signed whilst he was manager which isn't really the fault of the transfer team is it that they were giving a poor coach decent players who he couldn't utilise. Suppose you think that the fact he now plays regularly for a much better team in the PL than us is a fluke then?

Didn't really want to get into a debate with you on this thread because it's fairly obvious you see TK as the antichrist and want to attribute signings to other people, presumably as some sort of confirmation bias towards your POV. As Jay says, nobody thinks TK is some sort of footballing guru and I have and will call him out on his mistakes like the vast majority of the people on here, but there is a balance to the debate that you don't seem to be entirely interested in

[Dougie]

Why does paying Areola £4m make any difference whatsoever?

Because our resources are finite and therefore the only way to judge performance in the market that is actually linked to the health of the club is value for money. Areola was a premium player who we paid premium money for. He hit benchmark.

My point on Lookman completely refuted your point because he was a very good player who regressed under the cardigan botherer, like the vast majority of players we signed whilst he was manager which isn't really the fault of the transfer team is it that they were giving a poor coach decent players who he couldn't utilise.

You have all of your work ahead of you in demonstrating Parker was at fault for Lookman failing to sustain his initial burst of good form, and until you do you would have to think me an idiot to capitulate to such a feeble argument.

Suppose you think that the fact he now plays regularly for a much better team in the PL than us is a fluke then?

I described him as an adequate loan signing. He is now playing in decent form on loan for a PL side that is presently 12th in the division. I'm not sure exactly why you think this is evidence that Lookman was an extraordinary signing.

Edit: just saw your edit:

Didn't really want to get into a debate with you on this thread because it's fairly obvious you see TK as the antichrist and want to attribute signings to other people, presumably as some sort of confirmation bias towards your POV. As Jay says, nobody thinks TK is some sort of footballing guru and I have and will call him out on his mistakes like the vast majority of the people on here, but there is a balance to the debate that you don't seem to be entirely interested in

TK generated value in the transfer market in August 2020. It didn't come close to off-setting the harm of previous windows, as evidenced by £50m of players going out on loan in the same window. That's £50m we otherwise could have spent strengthening the squad. It remains to be seen whether he will continue to claw back more of the harm he has done to this club. I hope he does, of course.

His Dad has been incredibly generous and we are lucky to have him, though appointing his son as DoF was obviously not a good business decision.

That is the balance to the debate.

[jayffc]

Why does paying Areola £4m make any difference whatsoever?

Because our resources are finite and therefore the only way to judge performance in the market that is actually linked to the health of the club is value for money. Areola was a premium player who we paid premium money for. He hit benchmark.

My point on Lookman completely refuted your point because he was a very good player who regressed under the cardigan botherer, like the vast majority of players we signed whilst he was manager which isn't really the fault of the transfer team is it that they were giving a poor coach decent players who he couldn't utilise.

You have all of your work ahead of you in demonstrating Parker was at fault for Lookman failing to sustain his initial burst of good form, and until you do you would have to think me an idiot to capitulate to such a feeble argument.

Suppose you think that the fact he now plays regularly for a much better team in the PL than us is a fluke then?

I described him as an adequate loan signing. He is now playing in decent form on loan for a PL side that is presently 12th in the division. I'm not sure exactly why you think this is evidence that Lookman was an extraordinary signing.

I make your opinions wrong on many counts, Im just over the attitude frankly. You've zero wish to reconsider so well only go in circles... Do you man. As I say, you feel evidently compelled to justify people actually hating a man over football transfers and doing all the mental gymnastics to vilify someone for signing players we all agreed looked good on paper when signed... Go ahead. whatever makes ya happy wise guy

[The Rational Fan]

Didn't really want to get into a debate with you on this thread because it's fairly obvious you see TK as the antichrist and want to attribute signings to other people, presumably as some sort of confirmation bias towards your POV. As Jay says, nobody thinks TK is some sort of footballing guru and I have and will call him out on his mistakes like the vast majority of the people on here, but there is a balance to the debate that you don't seem to be entirely interested in.

Tony Khan is a multibillionaire DOF with a multibillionaire father, who has managed to convince his father to invest the legal maximum into the squad every season, which at current performance seems to guarantee to be a yo-yo team.

Importantly, If he continues to get the legally maximum invested every season and he continues to improve his investing by 5-10% per season, then in a decade FFC should be regularly in the to half of the premier league.

[Dougie]

I make your opinions wrong on many counts, Im just over the attitude frankly. You've zero wish to reconsider so well only go in circles... Do you man. As I say, you feel evidently compelled to justify people actually hating a man over football transfers and doing all the mental gymnastics to vilify someone for signing players we all agreed looked good on paper when signed... Go ahead. whatever makes ya happy wise guy

I'm compelled to point out that people who believe TK has been bad at his job are more than justified in their belief. You're the one trying to frame it as "irrational hatred", as though by conceiving of the lowest possible motivation, you've found the only and correct one. As though having £50m of his signings out on loan last season because they were considered unsuitable for PL football is anything under than comprehensive vindication of his critics.

It doesn't really concern me what you make of my arguments. You don't actually appear to understand the central criticism, which is why you present non-defences like "signing players we all agreed looked good on paper". I'm quite open to persuasion to the contrary, but incoherent nonsense and snide remarks aren't very persuasive, and I don't think you are in a position to complain about "attitude".

[Deeping_white]

My point on Lookman completely refuted your point because he was a very good player who regressed under the cardigan botherer, like the vast majority of players we signed whilst he was manager which isn't really the fault of the transfer team is it that they were giving a poor coach decent players who he couldn't utilise.

You have all of your work ahead of you in demonstrating Parker was at fault for Lookman failing to sustain his initial burst of good form, and until you do you would have to think me an idiot to capitulate to such a feeble argument.

If you ever watched us under Parker you'll have noticed that every wide attacking player we ever signed under him had a decent start where they played as they'd been accustomed to before joining FFC, and slowly regressed into Parkerball where they got coached into not taking players on and passing backward and sideways. Look at Cavaleiro, one of the best players in the team for the first three months and then did a complete U-turn in his form. Knockaert came to us as a decent player and it seems like Parker completely broke him from the off. BDR's last season in the championship yielded over 20 goals, he'd come off a half decent PL season and yet Parker made him into a bang average player. Then he gets Lookman, a player who on debut ran rings around Wolves and continued that form for a couple of months, before Parker's coaching essentially turned him into a counter attacking winger who was told he couldn't take people on anymore and had to pass the ball square at every opportunity. I'll give you one isolated case being too hard to make it stick, but it was a common phenomena across all attacking players so that starts to look like it's the coach and not the players.

[Dougie]

You have all of your work ahead of you in demonstrating Parker was at fault for Lookman failing to sustain his initial burst of good form, and until you do you would have to think me an idiot to capitulate to such a feeble argument.

If you ever watched us under Parker you'll have noticed that every wide attacking player we ever signed under him had a decent start where they played as they'd been accustomed to before joining FFC, and slowly regressed into Parkerball where they got coached into not taking players on and passing backward and sideways. Look at Cavaleiro, one of the best players in the team for the first three months and then did a complete U-turn in his form. Knockaert came to us as a decent player and it seems like Parker completely broke him from the off. BDR's last season in the championship yielded over 20 goals, he'd come off a half decent PL season and yet Parker made him into a bang average player. Then he gets Lookman, a player who on debut ran rings around Wolves and continued that form for a couple of months, before Parker's coaching essentially turned him into a counter attacking winger who was told he couldn't take people on anymore and had to pass the ball square at every opportunity. I'll give you one isolated case being too hard to make it stick, but it was a common phenomena across all attacking players so that starts to look like it's the coach and not the players.

The performances of Cavaleiro and Knockaert under subsequent manages suggest to me that Parker is not responsible for their mediocrity. Knockaert in particular was found out at Forest last year, and we are now stuck with a toxic asset on big wages we can't give away.

Did Lookman's role in the team change between his initial strong performances and his mediocre ones subsequently? We changed system in November and changed out of it in February and none of that appears to coincide with his loss in form. I'd actually say that the Leicester game was his last really good game, and that was the first one under the new system.

I wonder whether it was simply that he was an unknown entity at the beginning, but once opposition teams knew about him and were able to plan to nullify him, his ability to impact the game diminished (except for bad teams like Sheff Utd).

[jayffc]

I make your opinions wrong on many counts, Im just over the attitude frankly. You've zero wish to reconsider so well only go in circles... Do you man. As I say, you feel evidently compelled to justify people actually hating a man over football transfers and doing all the mental gymnastics to vilify someone for signing players we all agreed looked good on paper when signed... Go ahead. whatever makes ya happy wise guy

I'm compelled to point out that people who believe TK has been bad at his job are more than justified in their belief. You're the one trying to frame it as "irrational hatred", as though by conceiving of the lowest possible motivation, you've found the only and correct one. As though having £50m of his signings out on loan last season because they were considered unsuitable for PL football is anything under than comprehensive vindication of his critics.

It doesn't really concern me what you make of my arguments. You don't actually appear to understand the central criticism, which is why you present non-defences like "signing players we all agreed looked good on paper". I'm quite open to persuasion to the contrary, but incoherent nonsense and snide remarks aren't very persuasive, and I don't think you are in a position to complain about "attitude".

"Snide remarks"
Rich
Thinking someone is bad at his job is different to the vitriol spewed here.
It's not framed as, it's been pretty overt on here for years.
More than capable of understanding thanks...the arguments aren't so deeply intellectual that they're impossible to understand I just disagree and havent an interest in engaging further with someone saying something is fact when in fact its opinion. No place to start conversation and I'm over it

Best

[Dougie]

Thinking someone is bad at his job is different to the vitriol spewed here.

There's been no vitriol in this thread.

More than capable of understanding thanks...the arguments aren't so deeply intellectual that they're impossible to understand

You're right, it's very easy to understand that the main criticism is that TK's transfer record represents poor value for money. So it's odd that you think comments like "we all thought they were good signings at the time" is anything but white noise.

I just disagree

You're welcome to, but it comes across as detached from reality, when we had £50m of signings out on loan last year because they were deemed inadequate for Premiership football. That's £50m (plus a good chunk of wages) we otherwise could have spent strengthening the side to fight for survival. No promoted club has ever began their efforts to avoid relegation with such a handicap before, and the blame for that handicap lies squarely with the DoF.

[jayffc]

Thinking someone is bad at his job is different to the vitriol spewed here.

There's been no vitriol in this thread.

More than capable of understanding thanks...the arguments aren't so deeply intellectual that they're impossible to understand

You're right, it's very easy to understand that the main criticism is that TK's transfer record represents poor value for money. So it's odd that you think comments like "we all thought they were good signings at the time" is anything but white noise.

I just disagree

You're welcome to, but it comes across as detached from reality, when we had £50m of signings out on loan last year because they were deemed inadequate for Premiership football. That's £50m (plus a good chunk of wages) we otherwise could have spent strengthening the side to fight for survival. No promoted club has ever began their efforts to avoid relegation with such a handicap before, and the blame for that handicap lies squarely with the DoF.

Comes across *to you * that way
That's your      *opinion* ..and evidently there are plenty who disagree with it. And that's fine, knock yaself out.

Personally I think agreeing that signings were good when they were made...then if they don't work out later, with the power of hindsight, calling the man who signed them awful at his job as if he should possess some future scope not afforded to every other human, football pundit and fan around is an odd way to look at life and pretty simplistic and black and white...but that's my opinion...and you don't agree with it, no worries. To some they comprehend and connect with that as a concept, to others like yourself, they prefer to take a different route which to myself is a little more negative and accusationa, perhaos you think of it as holding people accountable,fair enough.

Personally was over the moon with the summer we brought in Seri before a ball was kicked...so feel it would be pretty childish of me to later start pointing fingers and trashing the board from the comfy judgment of hindsight

When talking about TK and his treatment were not just talking about this thread, it's a much wider issue that'd been longstanding and glad that many on here seem happy to create something of support.

Anyway genuinely that's it from me. Crack on

[Dougie]

Personally I think agreeing that signings were good when they were made...then if they don't work out later, with the power of hindsight, calling the man who signed them awful at his job as if he should possess some future scope not afforded to every other human

This is insane. It is literally the job of recruitment to sign players who will be good for us, not players who were good for other clubs before we signed them. The measure of the success of recruitment is specifically whether or not the value they bring to the club is worth what the club pays for them.

There are lots of people whose job it is to have a "future scope", and many, many of them have a very good one. Brentford's success has been built around that. Many smaller clubs rely on that "future scope" to survive at the level they do (Peterboro, for instance).

Signings are (very expensive) investments.  If your investment yields a poor return, you are a poor investor. If you buy stocks at an inflated value and they quickly fall to their true value, it doesn't do to turn around and say "well they were valuable stocks when I bought them".

Khan is a bad director of football - a terrible one, even - because his investments (the players he signed), for the most part, do not deliver a good return on investment, and because he has assembled a number of toxic assets over the years that have prevented the club from investing more.

Personally was over the moon with the summer we brought in Seri before a ball was kicked...so feel it would be pretty childish of me to later start pointing fingers and trashing the board from the comfy judgment of hindsight

It's the job of recruitment to show more wisdom than the average football fan. You are holding TK to a ridiculously low standard if you expect nothing more from him than that.

[perry geyton]

Everyone was excited when we signed Anguissa Seri and the German including Dougie I guarantee

It's so easy to criticize after the fact

But that's just my incoherent ramblings, what do I know

[Dougie]

Everyone was excited when we signed Anguissa Seri and the German including Dougie I guarantee

It's so easy to criticize after the fact

I was actually apprehensive because we were investing a lot on a few players without PL experience, but it's besides the point. What fans thought about the signings is completely irrelevant to how good at recruitment Khan is.

"Criticising after the fact" is called evaluating someone at their job.

what do I know

You held up a list of 14 "quality" TK signings, and only six were actually signed under TK's stewardship. Eight of them weren't, including two academy graduates. Do you really want an answer to that question  :005:

[jayffc]

Personally I think agreeing that signings were good when they were made...then if they don't work out later, with the power of hindsight, calling the man who signed them awful at his job as if he should possess some future scope not afforded to every other human

This is insane. It is literally the job of recruitment to sign players who will be good for us, not players who were good for other clubs before we signed them. The measure of the success of recruitment is specifically whether or not the value they bring to the club is worth what the club pays for them.

There are lots of people whose job it is to have a "future scope", and many, many of them have a very good one. Brentford's success has been built around that. Many smaller clubs rely on that "future scope" to survive at the level they do (Peterboro, for instance).

Signings are (very expensive) investments.  If your investment yields a poor return, you are a poor investor. If you buy stocks at an inflated value and they quickly fall to their true value, it doesn't do to turn around and say "well they were valuable stocks when I bought them".

Khan is a bad director of football - a terrible one, even - because his investments (the players he signed), for the most part, do not deliver a good return on investment, and because he has assembled a number of toxic assets over the years that have prevented the club from investing more.

Personally was over the moon with the summer we brought in Seri before a ball was kicked...so feel it would be pretty childish of me to later start pointing fingers and trashing the board from the comfy judgment of hindsight

It's the job of recruitment to show more wisdom than the average football fan. You are holding TK to a ridiculously low standard if you expect nothing more from him than that.

It wasn't just fans it was football people and pundits up and down the country.
Anyway, whatever man,
Disagree and it really isn't worth getting into why anymore It's been years of it on here and its wasted energy at this point. People want a villain to hate and blame for their frustration. Life.
See ya later