Football Fusion

[WhiteJC]

 
Owner of Jaguars and Fulham Seeks Football Fusion


Fusing Teams as Never Before: Shahid Khan, the owner of Fulham Football Club and the Jacksonville Jaguars, has plans to integrate his teams in ways no other owner has done.

LONDON — The mile-long walk from the Putney Bridge tube stop to Craven Cottage, the home of Fulham Football Club, is among the most scenic in English soccer. On game days, fathers and sons, young couples and hardened fans amble together through Bishop's Park past rose bushes, stone sculptures and the Thames.

The pastoral parade is a world away from Jacksonville, Fla., where most Jaguars fans arrive at their team's games by car or truck in search of parking spots for their card tables, barbecues and coolers. The scenes had little in common until July, when Shahid Khan, the owner of the Jaguars, bought Fulham for an estimated 200 million pounds (about $319 million), creating an unlikely sports tandem. Less than two decades old, the Jaguars are one of the N.F.L.'s youngest franchises and play in one of the league's smallest markets, with only occasional success.

Fulham, by contrast, dates to 1879, and while it lacks the winning tradition of, say, Manchester United, it has produced great players like Johnny Haynes and Bobby Robson. Archibald Leitch, a renowned architect, designed part of its stadium, a landmark in an upscale section of London.

Khan, an auto-parts magnate, wants to fuse the teams in ways no owner of American and English teams has done. He committed the Jaguars to playing home games in London the next four seasons — including on Oct. 27 against the 49ers — fueling talk that they may move there. Fulham will play friendlies in Florida. Khan has hired marketers to win sponsors on both sides of the Atlantic and has told his teams to share tips on everything from catering to ticketing.

"They are two separate entities, but there is common ground where two plus two equals five," he said. "It's kind of saturated in the U.S., so the growth will be internationally."

To date, most owners of American and English teams have viewed their clubs as too distinct to integrate. While the N.F.L. has a salary cap, Premier League clubs can spend without limit for players. American stadiums are like theme parks, dominated by luxury boxes and food courts; British stadiums are frequently minimalist, with fans doing most of their eating and drinking in nearby pubs. While American teams seek stadium naming partners, shirt deals in England are often more visible, and more lucrative.

The most prominent combinations of teams have little to do with one another, including Manchester United and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, which are owned by the Glazer family; and Arsenal, the St. Louis Rams and the Colorado Rapids of Major League Soccer, which are owned by Stan Kroenke. Randy Lerner, who owns Aston Villa and sold the Cleveland Browns, did little to fuse his teams.

The owners of Manchester City are likely to collaborate with the M.L.S. team they bought this year, which expects to begin play in New York in 2015. The Fenway Sports Group has created cross-border links between Liverpool and the Boston Red Sox, though baseball is barely played in Britain.

Khan seeks to go further. Because the Jaguars will play in London regularly, the N.F.L. gave them extra marketing rights that are starting to generate more income for a team that is last in the league in revenue per ticket sold. Khan is promoting Jacksonville to British fans in the hope they will visit to see a Jaguars game. To whet their appetites, he sent the Jaguars' cheerleaders to perform at a Fulham match, and a British lingerie company created a calendar for them. The newly formed Union Jax Jaguars fan club in Britain has about 17,000 members.

"Mr. Khan said we're not the Fulham Jaguars," said Laura Oakes, who was hired to find sponsorships for the Jaguars in Britain. "But in terms of raising our profile, Fulham is a wonderful icebreaker."

Despite the focus on the N.F.L. in London, the bigger opportunity could be in selling Fulham to American fans: on a per-capita basis, English soccer is more popular in the United States than American football is in Britain, said Steven Gans, a principal at Professional Soccer Advisors. The latest deal to carry Premier League games in the United States was three times as large as the previous contract, one sign of the sport's growing prominence.

"It's validated our theory, which is, Americans want high-quality soccer," said Gans, who helped Fulham seek business ties in the United States several years ago. "The growth here has been consistent for people who love high-quality soccer."

Having Fulham tour the United States in its off-season could bring in millions of dollars. While the club does not have the stature of Real Madrid or Chelsea, it has a following in the United States because national team stars like Clint Dempsey and Brian McBride once played for the team, earning it the nickname Fulhamerica.

"I love any time I see someone with a Fulham jersey or scarf," said McBride, who was captain during his nearly four years at Fulham and is now an analyst for Fox Sports. "When an American fan goes over there to go to some games, there are some special stadiums, but Fulham has character."

Getting executives five time zones apart to work together is easier in theory than in practice. And some things, like selling tickets more efficiently, will do only so much to offset a terrible player contract, missing the playoffs or being relegated. Some owners, including the Glazers, have also taken heavy criticism from fans who suspect them of using profits from United to subsidize the Buccaneers.

For now, Khan is getting high marks from fans in Jacksonville, where he is treated like a rock star, and in London, where he removed a deeply unpopular statue of Michael Jackson installed by the previous owner. But losing breeds discontent, and the winless Jaguars may need a financial boost if they are to turn around their fortunes on the field. Khan also agreed to pay about one-third of a $63 million upgrade to EverBank Field in Jacksonville and will spend even more to upgrade Craven Cottage. Fulham, which is one spot above relegation before this weekend's matches, must compete with free-spending clubs across Europe for top players.

Because of the N.F.L.'s healthy revenue-sharing program, the Jaguars earned an operating profit of $15.5 million last year, even though they were the second-least valuable franchise in the league, according to Forbes. English soccer clubs share less of their revenue, but Fulham can tap into the wealthy London market for new sources of revenue.

Indeed, Fulham plans to spend about 30 million pounds (nearly $50 million) to expand its stadium, which has only 25,000 seats and is hemmed in by a park, the Thames and its landmark grandstand. The team wants to add new lounges, 4,300 club seats, and a cafe and restaurant that will be open on nongame days.

"It's a very important part of our business plan," said Alistair MacIntosh, Fulham's chief executive. "There is a trend towards being self-sustaining."

With its small stadium and modest ambitions, Fulham is unlikely to challenge for the Premier League title or regularly qualify for the European tournaments that might bring in more revenue, even though the team's previous owner, Mohamed Al-Fayed, once vowed to turn the club into the "Manchester United of the South."

Yet the Cottagers, as the team is known, have been good enough to avoid relegation the past dozen years. Last year, Fulham had nearly $130 million in revenue, a total that was 10th in the 20-team Premier League but only one-quarter of what Manchester United earned. The team still lost $30 million before taxes.

"Balancing the books is the goal," said Alexander Thorpe, who works in the Sports Business Group at Deloitte, which produces an annual financial review of the Premier League. "If everyone is getting a big chunk of television money, the difference is how much commercial revenue teams earn."

Like all teams, Fulham has a devoted following. But many fans, including transplants to London, consider the club their second team. Craven Cottage is a rarity in that it has neutral zone seats for fans of any affiliation. It is also considered family friendly, at least by British standards. Fulham's former cheerleaders, the Cravenettes, were replaced by a mascot, Billy the Badger, who once received a yellow card for his sideline antics.

Fulham's best asset might be its tradition. It is one of England's oldest clubs, and its cozy stadium evokes Fenway Park along the Thames. The famed Johnny Haynes Stand includes wooden seats installed more than a century ago, and a two-story brick cottage doubles as a dressing room. Unlike rowdy crowds elsewhere, Fulham's fans, who include the actor Hugh Grant, appear content simply to be playing in England's top division.

"Fulham will never compete with Chelsea," its more powerful neighbor, said Steve Nutley, a lifelong Fulham supporter whose London taxicab is adorned with team paraphernalia. "There's no animosity between the teams. That's how we grew up."

Fans ultimately want to watch a winner, and the lack of a salary cap in the Premier League means Khan can spend heavily on players if he wants. But he is more likely to take advantage of new financial fair play rules in European soccer that will tie the amount a club spends to what it earns. The rules could help rein in owners who have bankrolled losses in their search of the best talent, and give Khan some time to figure out ways to generate more money from his teams.

The goal for Fulham, just as it is for the Jaguars, is that it "should not depend on the benevolence of its chairman," Khan said.

"It should become a sustaining business," he added, "a virtuous cycle where you are bringing money in and spending on players."


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/sports/owner-of-jaguars-and-fulham-seeks-a-football-fusion.html?_r=0

[frei bentos]

"But many fans, including transplants to London, consider the club to be their second team"

I'm confused by this statement (transplants) but also definitely offended. How did they come to that conclusion?

[RaySmith]

It's just clumsy wording.

People come to live in London from all over Britain and the world, and I suppose that many of them find it easy to get tickets to Fulham, though they would prefer to go to Chelsea and Arsenal, etc,. who they 'support'.

Fulham is their second team, because they are unthreatening to the top teams these people  want to win things, and are a friendly club, where it's easy to actually attend Prem games.

Our core fan base, who would always  support the club whatever, is probably fairly small, and eroded by long term fans moving away from the area, unable to afford to go to games, and dying - to be replaced by a new type of fan, who doesn't have the same emotional commitment to the club, but is more demanding in expecting success and wants to see a payback for all the money they spend on tickets, and to always see 'entertaining' football .

[The Bronsons]

"But many fans, including transplants to London, consider the club to be their second team"
I'm confused by this statement (transplants) but also definitely offended. How did they come to that conclusion?

I don't know what their evidence is, but my experience is that it's correct. I've met quite a few people over the years from elsewhere in the UK who moved to London for work and buy a season ticket for FFC.

Other London teams probably have some "transplants" as well, but factor in price and the intrinsic appeal of the ground and ticket availability and not being a place where a fan with a Liverpool/Newcastle/Birmingham accent is going to feel threatened and we have to be a favourite. 

[The Equalizer]

I know quite a few people who regularly attend games at the Cottage, and many who also have season tickets, even though they do not support Fulham as their 'first' team.

[Lighthouse]

I can see where we could do with a few transplants.


On the whole though a nice article.

[jms]

The only thing that offends me about the whole article is that apparently only 'fathers and sons' go to matches. Many mothers and daughters go, and fathers and daughters, and mothers and sons.......and have done since the club existed. My dad took me to matches in the late fifties, and as a girl I never remember feeling 'out of place.'
What with this article and 'girls as cheerleaders', I do feel sometimes that mainstream America is so outdated in many ways.

[beijing ben]

It's just clumsy wording.

People come to live in London from all over Britain and the world, and I suppose that many of them find it easy to get tickets to Fulham, though they would prefer to go to Chelsea and Arsenal, etc,. who they 'support'.

Fulham is their second team, because they are unthreatening to the top teams these people  want to win things, and are a friendly club, where it's easy to actually attend Prem games.

Our core fan base, who would always  support the club whatever, is probably fairly small, and eroded by long term fans moving away from the area, unable to afford to go to games, and dying - to be replaced by a new type of fan, who doesn't have the same emotional commitment to the club, but is more demanding in expecting success and wants to see a payback for all the money they spend on tickets, and to always see 'entertaining' football .

Is this new type of 'fan' limited to us though? I think we were a club that had those types of fans coming before we were in the premiership but i was hoping that didn't really exist any more. But i haven't been a regular for a number of years so if you guys say it still exists i'll have to disappointingly accept it. You are definitely right that our core fan group is small but id like to think that it is growing not diminishing..

[Forever Fulham]

The only thing that offends me about the whole article is that apparently only 'fathers and sons' go to matches. Many mothers and daughters go, and fathers and daughters, and mothers and sons.......and have done since the club existed. My dad took me to matches in the late fifties, and as a girl I never remember feeling 'out of place.'
What with this article and 'girls as cheerleaders', I do feel sometimes that mainstream America is so outdated in many ways.

There really is no good response to your observation, jms.  Cheerleaders are an historic anomaly, a holdover.  I've heard all sorts of attempts at justifying their continued presence in a presumably enlightened age, but none ring true to me.  They are titillation, eye candy, sex objects, who prance about with choreographed moves.  I have a daughter as well as a son, and I think cheerleaders' continued presence demeans women, reinforces their position as an appendage, as less than, as things relegated to narrow roles, rather than individuals capable of playing high level sports, managing businesses, having professional careers.  And yet I love the eye candy as much as the next guy.  An odd internal conflict plays out.  I supported my daughter in volleyball and soccer and track and field.  I can still remember her impromptu comment about cheerleaders:  "How stupid."  Makes you stop and think...  I hope cheerleading just quietly goes away.  Until then, I and most men I've heard talk about it, just ignore them without giving it any thought.  They are there, but they might as well not be.  In any event, please don't indict Americans over cheerleading.  It's a societal holdover that's past its expiration date.  Soon it will morph into something more palatable to all concerned.

[Berserker]

I noticed the pin up calender in the on line shop last week and thought that was a thing of the past. If they are going to have that sort of thing to purchase at least have another calender available with our players in it.

[Berserker]

Obviously i meant with there kit on

[jms]

The only thing that offends me about the whole article is that apparently only 'fathers and sons' go to matches. Many mothers and daughters go, and fathers and daughters, and mothers and sons.......and have done since the club existed. My dad took me to matches in the late fifties, and as a girl I never remember feeling 'out of place.'
What with this article and 'girls as cheerleaders', I do feel sometimes that mainstream America is so outdated in many ways.

There really is no good response to your observation, jms.  Cheerleaders are an historic anomaly, a holdover.  I've heard all sorts of attempts at justifying their continued presence in a presumably enlightened age, but none ring true to me.  They are titillation, eye candy, sex objects, who prance about with choreographed moves.  I have a daughter as well as a son, and I think cheerleaders' continued presence demeans women, reinforces their position as an appendage, as less than, as things relegated to narrow roles, rather than individuals capable of playing high level sports, managing businesses, having professional careers.  And yet I love the eye candy as much as the next guy.  An odd internal conflict plays out.  I supported my daughter in volleyball and soccer and track and field.  I can still remember her impromptu comment about cheerleaders:  "How stupid."  Makes you stop and think...  I hope cheerleading just quietly goes away.  Until then, I and most men I've heard talk about it, just ignore them without giving it any thought.  They are there, but they might as well not be.  In any event, please don't indict Americans over cheerleading.  It's a societal holdover that's past its expiration date.  Soon it will morph into something more palatable to all concerned.

Let's hope so

[Logicalman]

The only thing that offends me about the whole article is that apparently only 'fathers and sons' go to matches. Many mothers and daughters go, and fathers and daughters, and mothers and sons.......and have done since the club existed. My dad took me to matches in the late fifties, and as a girl I never remember feeling 'out of place.'
What with this article and 'girls as cheerleaders', I do feel sometimes that mainstream America is so outdated in many ways.

There really is no good response to your observation, jms.  Cheerleaders are an historic anomaly, a holdover.  I've heard all sorts of attempts at justifying their continued presence in a presumably enlightened age, but none ring true to me.  They are titillation, eye candy, sex objects, who prance about with choreographed moves.  I have a daughter as well as a son, and I think cheerleaders' continued presence demeans women, reinforces their position as an appendage, as less than, as things relegated to narrow roles, rather than individuals capable of playing high level sports, managing businesses, having professional careers.  And yet I love the eye candy as much as the next guy.  An odd internal conflict plays out.  I supported my daughter in volleyball and soccer and track and field.  I can still remember her impromptu comment about cheerleaders:  "How stupid."  Makes you stop and think...  I hope cheerleading just quietly goes away.  Until then, I and most men I've heard talk about it, just ignore them without giving it any thought.  They are there, but they might as well not be.  In any event, please don't indict Americans over cheerleading.  It's a societal holdover that's past its expiration date.  Soon it will morph into something more palatable to all concerned.

THAT, is a first class response to a somewhat prickly subject matter. It couldn't have been stated any better.  :plus one:

[Logicalman]

Obviously i meant with there kit on

uh-huh, yeah right!!!   I think we all know where your mind was wandering to the Mrs B!!

[valdeingruo]

Obviously i meant with there kit on

uh-huh, yeah right!!!   I think we all know where your mind was wandering to the Mrs B!!

Just had to put a retraction in there to make it not as obvious!

[Berserker]

I think generally, myself included, women prefer pictures of men that have certain areas covered up. Althougth obviously i can't talk for all women.

[ron]

The staple has often preserved modesty on the centrefolds.....

     ......so I've been told of course....