Comments on: Mackintosh on Fulham’s Fenway deal

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:09:38 +0000

Why is everyone afraid of Craven Cottage being renamed in this partnership. I don’t get that sense at all. If this were their intention, Fenway Park would have been renamed six years ago when Henry, Werner and Luccino took over the Red Sox organization. Trust me, they have abundant respect for tradition. You’d be hard pressed to find anyone in the New England area that disapproves of what the Red Sox have become as an organization. Yes, there are little things that people disagree with (too much advertising around the stadium now); but it could be just the price of succeeding.
I will continue to be perplexed over the partnership with Roush Racing, but that may just be because stock car racing isn’t nearly as popular in the top right corner of the US (apologies to all of those in New Hampshire).

By: Chloe

Chloe — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:43:26 +0000

Hopefully, in Rich’s workable scenario, the plane would leave Chelsea in Abu Dhabi.

By: rich

rich — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:32:43 +0000

Ah, that wasn’t quite my point – I was just responding to Jason’s point about not selling out – but your point is good too. The whole thing’s silly. As I said above, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Monday’s game was, for some time, one of those “Game 39? They’d love this in Abu Dhabi” encounters wasn’t it? In fact, if a game must be taken overseas, I have hit upon a solution. Take two far apart big sides – let’s say Chelsea and Manchester City – and play both league games (Chelsea home, City home) abroad on a Saturday and a Wednesday. This way overseas fans get a game that might be of more than passing interest, it’s h/a so nobody really loses out (apart from the Chelsea/City fans, but I’m sacrificing them for the greater good) and the rest of us can get on with things as we were. You can rotate the games every season, and because each club only goes once every 10 years or so you pay for x thousand fans to travel to the two matches, based on previous away games attended. I stress that the above is very much an “if you have to do this” plan, but perhaps this is workable.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:04:07 +0000

You raise a good point there Rich about the internationalising of domestic fixtures. The English clubs take fans away from home in great numbers than any other European (and maybe world) league so moving matches overseas won’t just punish the home fans it will mean that visiting supporters miss out on an away day. I’ve lost count of the number of visiting fans who have told me that coming to Craven Cottage is one of their favourite trips of the season.

By: rich

rich — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:59:56 +0000

But midweek games are what, 5,000 people off Saturday games? So that’s 5,000 people, many of whom are away fans (can’t travel a long way on a Tuesday), most of whom are occasional visitors, and for that the game is a candidate to move overseas? This doesn’t make sense to me. You’re still punishing the fans who go every week.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:56:49 +0000

Oh, I’ve no doubt the powers-that-be would love to chase the dollar all over the world, and if they did I’d seriously have to contemplate whether it was worth me spending as much of my hard-earned cash following Fulham home and away.

We’re getting a lot closer to selling out the Cottage for midweek games. Ticket sales for Roma have really picked up this week I see as well. We’re in a much healthier position attendance wise than we were even a couple of years ago – and I don’t think moving games to Fenway is the answer.

By: Jason Gatties

Jason Gatties — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:52:47 +0000

Rules can be changed Dan and if money is involved, the powers that be will give in, trust me.

I suggested moving a mid-week match to Fenway since we can’t seem to fill the Cottage during the week anyways. When we’re able to sell out the Cottage during the week, I’ll shut up. Otherwise, I’m open to the idea.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:17:42 +0000

Fair enough. I just think it would be the first step on a slippery slope.

I’d lay off all the competitions altogether. Moving League Cup games overseas will just devalue the competition even further and they’ll be even more incentive for managers to field teams of youngsters. Pre-season tours and tournaments are great but English comeptitive games should stay on these shores.

By: rich

rich — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:32:53 +0000

Hi Dan

Yes, I get that, but it would still be Craven Cottage. I’m with you on balance anyway, but if you’re 99% opposed I’m probably 89%, that’s all.

Moving one of the 38 games to Boston is almost as bad as game 39, worse in some ways as we’d see a game less. People need to stop pissing around with these sorts of ideas, if it ain’t broke, etc. Feel free to do pre-season tours, tournaments, even perhaps League Cup games (there’s an idea!) but lay off the league.

Rich

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:23:20 +0000

Because Rich, it’s the last tangible bit of heritage we’ve got and I’m loathe to let a marketing mogul ride roughshod over it. The club have rebranded our badge, tried to move us away from the Cottage and now want to sell the name of our ground to the highest bidder.

On the less emotive point, there’s a serious doubt as to whether the renaming would bring in the kind of ‘crazy money’ you are talking about. Arsenal didn’t get as much for the Emirates as they expected and we’re probably the lowest profile London club in the top flight so I can’t imagine us raking it in.

Jason – Because if we unilaterally decided to move a game to Boston it would be a breach of Premier League rules. The clubs have to take a decision as a collective to more matches overseas and the only scenario under which that would happen is in the guise of the ‘39th game’.