[Official Site] WATCH | Q&A WITH KHALED EL-AHMAD

Finally listened to the whole thing.

First of all, credit to all parties that took part. It was a marathon effort, and we should be grateful for the time given. I would've been out for at least two brew breaks in that time. Particular kudos to @Gally and @Loko the Tyke for pulling it all together.

On Khaled himself, I do have sympathy for him. He's inherited an absolute mess. A disastrous summer, with a complete turnover of staff, players not given a proper pre season, ownership disputes, issues with the West Stand (whether it's structural or financial viability never really cleared up), a poor head coach and in all likelyhood no money in the bank. I think there were also a number of issues that could've been resolved while games were played behind closed doors, or during the summer, that he's had to pick up.

That said, I pretty much disagreed with most things he said about the playing side. While I think it was fair enough to think Solbauer can go and have Helik and Andersen step up, for him to claim Styles and Palmer as experienced players was just desparate. Styles is certainly not an experienced midfielder, he's probably played less than 40 games there. Palmer has probably played about 50 games before this season, and barely played 90 mins in any of them. He then made the point that we have Helik, Woodrow, Cole, Oulare and Morris who are over 25. I think I'd swap three of those forwards for a decent midfielder. And the point he made about replacing Hourihane with Mowatt, did nothing to defend "the model" that he kept referring to. Mowatt didn't establish himself in our midfield for 18 months after Hourihane left, and that was in League 1. If anything, he'd have been better citing the fact we signed Gardner on loan the following season and we still got relegated.

On the 750k, I don't think there's much more he can say. He's asked the owners, and given the response. I wouldn't expect him to go rooting through the legal paperwork, particularly given the court case coming up. I think these are questions for Conway, Lee and the Crynes. I think the owners, including the Crynes, should be asked how a football club gets into a position where it's CEO is able to walk away from the club without any compensation or notice period.

Sadly, my overriding view on KEA based on this, and previous Q&As, is that his heart is in the right place and he's doing the best he can, and that he genuinely wants to improve us as a club. But, I think there are just things that he doesn't "get", particularly on the player recruitment side. You need a good blend of youth and experience, you need a good midfield. This has always been the case, and always will be. Even under Val, we needed Mowatt and James to control midfield in games, particularly when we didn't have the players to hold the ball up.

He wants to get to 15k season tickets, and says we should support the club for the club and not the owners. That's fine, but they have to give us something that we can get behind. We're all used to losing lots of games, and most understand a model of only spending what we have. But they need to show that they're actually trying to build a team, and not a stock of individual players that can be sold on for profit.

And please god, never let Conway have another transfer window as acting CEO again.

 

He definitely bloomed whilst with us.

 

He clearly tried to detach the ownership from the club itself in the interview and imo the number of season ticket sales will be heavily dependent on how many people buy into that.

My view is that without greater clarity on the £750k AND the the source of the further instalments many won't. I don't know whether the date of the upcoming court case is scheduled as yet but if it's not prior to the start of next season I don't expect there to be any statement from the 80%ers and that thousands will stay away. If it's scheduled and the 80%ers win then I'd expect ticket sales to fall dramatically when it becomes clear that the £750k won't be paid back and further instalments (total £2.5m?) are to be funded the same way. If they lose then I think their response will be interesting - do they fund it themselves or seek to sell because they don't have the funding or choose not to fund it?

The best but least likely option in my view is for them to have a change of heart and commit to pay any further instalments (if they can afford to do so) as I think some people might then move on from it.

All in all I don't think it looks good and suspect that we may see the club contract considerably. I don't think it's dependent on relegation either. I believe sales would be considerably lower even if we achieve the improbable and avoid relegation. Worrying times.

 

Have you considered doing reviews for Rotten Tomatoes?

 

Finally just finished watching it, after a 'minor detour' commenting on the £750k issue.

Looking at the the entire thing in the whole, I think Khaled's intentions are generally good, and there's genuine passion in much of what he talked about. Some of the initiatives would be better received if the big issues, that supporters don't feel are being addressed, weren't so utterly huge and obvious.

Some general observations:
- He can't be faulted for committing to the session and being generous with the time allowed to do so. He deserves credit for that.
- It's too easy for him to hide behind not knowing the intentions of the owners, or to use that as an excuse to evade questions. Intended or not, he doesn't seem to have the authority that you'd expect of a CEO, based on the way he responded to several questions. Ironically, the single exception to this was with regard to closure of the West Stand, which he defended robustly as a decision he'd take again. The difference between the two personas felt a bit 'convenient' at times.
- There's still a misunderstanding of the supporter base, in general, as there were some easily avoidable gaffes in some of the replies. Most striking to me was the 'challenge' about whether these issues would still be issues if we were 5th in the league, albeit that's an accusation that some of our supporters on here have also made.
- There's seemingly a gap in the space/time continuum that I'm unaware of where he's apparently been available every month for some sort of engagement, yet this the first thing I've heard from him since the Q&A at the start of November. Two local journalists have also commented on his unavailability in that period. I can't reconcile why the two versions of events are so contradictory.
- He challenged the general negativity via querying whether supporters are supporting the football club or the owners, and justifying that nothing should impact the former. He's missing the point that the owners have created such a disconnect with so many of us that we no longer recognise it as the club we've supported for so long. It shares the same name, the kit has the same colours, but without ambition to achieve on the field (which he stated we had, but this is not currently backed up by actions that I can see) that undefinable bond that previously brought us back year on year, regardless of league, has quite simply been broken.
- Perhaps of most relevance to my expectations as a supporter, the biggest concern I have with the answers given were with regard to the footballing issues covered in the early part of the interview, particularly trying to justify some of our squad as being experienced players, regardless of their age. That, along with the very vague and unconvincing responses regarding the transfer window, just reinforced the previous perception of a lack of ambition, a failure to acknowledge the errors in the recruitment model, and a resignation that we're playing in League One next season. The constant caveats regarding actions being 'within the model' increased, rather than diminished, the concern that we're effectively potless at the moment, and that this is fundamentally behind the lack of activity.

Compared to what I expected from it, I think I'm slightly less reassured about things than I expected to be beforehand. This is less a criticism of him, in terms of his ability to carry out the role, but more of a feeling that after 4 months in the role he doesn't seem to have got on top of the brief, at least as far as knowing where the 'quick wins' were in terms of the fanbase and ensuring that he did everything in his power to smash them out of the park. In a situation where few genuine positives are available, recognising where they are and addressing them would have generated much more personal goodwill towards him personally.

The video also highlighted the sheer scale of the challenge that he's inherited. Not all of the issues are of his creation, and it's a thankless task for anyone to step into that role at the time he did and expect to hit the ground running. He's made mistakes, but he does genuinely give the impression that he'll try to take feedback on board and attempt to make fewer going forward. Like Dane Murphy, he may well grow into the role and become an excellent CEO but, for many of us, it will probably be too late by then for anything to make a difference while the current owners remain.

 

Never felt so alienated from the Club than I do now. After 40yrs supporting the reds the Owners have their own agenda and it is clearly not about being a team that can be competitive and be representative of our town, but of making a quick buck on the back of fans and young potential who they are willing to throw under the bus because their unwillingness to do the bleeding obvious. Improve fan experience you are having a laugh, embarrassing.

 

Does anybody that watched the Q&A now feel more positive about the club ?

 

It’s been such a shame these rabble rousers on FaceyB managed to distract us from the glowing successes on and off the field at “Grove Street”, not sure when the request went in for the Q&A session but it seems this and the vouchers (bag of carp) only turned up when the pressure started growing.

 

Unfortunately not. I'd have loved to have been proved wrong about the West stand closure, we did X this date, paid for Y after the report, but no, it was "operational" reasons. Can't say I'm reassured about the talks with the council, no real indication about what they were about, what they need to agree.I
Last year's success on the pitch did encourage new ST holders, did give the town a lift. Just so frustrating that this wasn't built on.

 

I feel overall it was a poor performance. I can't fault him for appearing and facing the questions. But like you, I feel he hid behind the legal case, not being in post at a given time and just not knowing the answers. I suspect he's had some media training given his initial "i'm honest guv" car crash performance back in November. But it was still a poor showing.

There were a number of contradictions too that worry me and perhaps give an insight into the person.

He was very sorry about his comment last time that blew up about success being based on player sales. He didn't mean that, he apologised. he didn't want the players thinking they were but mere commodities. However, when asked if it was a successful season if we were relegated and sold 2 players, he said yes and no. No, that we'd been relegated. Yes, that we'd sold two players. He didn't even define the notional profit that needed to be generated to define it as a success. It was a pitfall question. He knew he had to try and navigate it better, but he fell through it.

I touched on the point that he side stepped questions by passing the buck to people before his time or the owners.

Yet to defend the notion of bringing players through and defending our woefully out of their depth midfield (and its not their fault they just aren't ready), he cited Alex Mowatt (before his time) replacing Conor Hourihane (well before his time). Though as someone else pointed out, we shipped Mowatt out on loan and only when we were relegated did he get game time to show us what he might be able to do. Not the best of examples to suggest our production conveyor belt of talented midfielders is a roaring success.

There were numerous other points where I found myself shaking my head. And I find he tends to use big picture points when asked about detail. I've encountered far too many pie in the sky thinkers placed into roles where some grasp of detail and nuance is required. Talking of 15,000 season ticket holders when you're bottom of the table, have legal cases between owners, have people staying away in their thousands despite having paid their money and have a potential cash flow crisis on the horizon... thats just daft. Call it naive, call it deluded, call it inexperienced. It's just daft. Particularly as he allegedly was the person who drastically reduced the capacity of the ground for "operational issues" but can't actually say what the issues were that were fixed.

His start as CEO though isn't too dissimilar to Murphys. Murphy managed to pull it around though. We'll have to wait to see if he can find some waterwings to prevent him sinking at first, and then in time if he can learn to swim.

I'll wait to see, but my expectations are low.

If we are relegated and if we do need to cut costs, my first mark with the red pen would be through the CEO. For the calibre of people we've been getting, if we're paying in the realms of £140k, we're hugely overpaying.

We don't need a CEO. We're not big enough to need it and it's a gloriously over stretched title for what they do. Call it an MD and get the salary in line for local MD's of an SME (which is what we are) and potentially have bonus clauses attached to it. Given our approach to interns, I find it galling we pay such high exec salaries for people who haven't even done the job. But I fear the exec level are a bit envious of player wages and feel they have to overpay there too.

 

Owners clearly aren’t interested, we are down already and it will be on an embarrassing number of points! It was clear by late August we wouldn’t score enough goals, and the midfield is the weakest I’ve ever seen it in 20 years! They aren’t even trying to rescue it.

On the west stand….he won’t admit it fully but it was only ever about stewards for away fans. Funny how it stayed open for so many people and reopened a few weeks later after big away followings!

Conway won’t come on, and even if he does he will spin a load of lies.

 

Does anyone!?

Probably suited both parties at the time , where the error was made was in not determining that Murphy was definitely leaving at the end of the contract and getting a replacement lined up.

 

This is another area that needs thorough explanation.

We either chose not to extend his contract and visa, or he chose not to extend his contract, or both parties mutually agreed not to extend his contract.

You can usually tell something hasn't gone the way Conway wants with his petty childlike toddler tantrums and the tone of his language.

There certainly weren't visa issues as he was in situ at Forest tout de suite.

We can all fill in the dots ourselves, but to me it's just another example of what made this the "best close season ever".

 

That Conways lack of statement to announce Murphys departure and the petulant sniping from him that the new CEO would add so much more than the previous one, that's essentially what they are saying isn't it?

I don't think any (many) believe that to be the case as it just makes no sense given all that happened. But that's the nub of his stance. It feels more Johnsonian by the day.

 

I think whether he walked away, or was just allowed to leave. To leave the club without a CEO during the summer window, for the second time in three years, was pretty negligent. Particularly given Murphy was doing the transfer deals and press interviews the month before he left.

 

This was something I wish the Q&A had touched on more, as Khaled kind of missed the point of the questions regarding this (perhaps deliberately to avoid having to answer them). All we got from him was that Dane's contract expired and he didn't feel there was a delay in replacing him ultimately (albeit all of this down to his individual circumstances, suggesting that he was the only candidate).

The situation with Dane Murphy ranks, to date, as one of the most spectacular failings of this ownership group to date (the fact that I have to bracket it was 'one of' is also telling). It throws up two key questions:

1) How was it possible that they allowed someone in such a commercially sensitive role as CEO to simply run down his contract and walk away from the club at the end of it?
2) On the assumption that they were aware that this was going to happen, why was someone who was clearly going to be leaving such a commercially sensitive role as CEO allowed to continue in that role until literally the day before his contract expired, by which time he would quite obviously have become conflicted in carrying on doing it?

To put the scale of this into some kind of perspective, I worked many years ago for an organisation where a member of the marketing team handed in her notice, due to accepting a similar role at a rival company. Due to the commercial sensitivities she was immediately asked to clear her desk and escorted from the building by security, and then served her entire notice period on garden leave (no early release from this provided, due to the direct conflict that her new role presented).

Imagine too the awkwardness of the situation less than 12 months later after the two companies had announced that they were merging, and she returned to the newly merged department to work alongside her old colleagues, sitting at her old desk with a reporting line into the person who'd made the decision to remove her so publicly at that time.