Shad Khan, Jaguars owner, ends association with One Spark, calls financial ties

[spuwho]

Gotta love Rummell.....

"I don't wanna get in a food fight with Shad Khan"

[thelakelander]

^The way not to do that is to stop talking about it publicly. At the end of the day, Khan can do with his money as he pleases. If the guy decides to pull his cash because he doesn't think he's made a sound investment, so be it. Let him go and move on.

[I-10east]

I'm just putting out there, I'm siding with #TeamKhan. It clearly sounds like pulling out of this deal was totally justified. Of course Khan is gonna catch ire from some that passionately reply to like seven consecutive scoreboard related threads over the span of many months, so that line is clearly drawn...There's something about Rummell that rubs me the wrong way, I can't explain it.

I don't fault Khan in getting out of that shysty situation. Why even have One Spark?? Rummell said that it didn't do anything for Jax, right??? (Can that be taken as a 'joke'?).

[PeeJayEss]

Why even have One Spark?? Rummell said that it didn't do anything for Jax, right??? (Can that be taken as a 'joke'?).

This comments can. He didn't say that. Not even the media would misconstrue his comment that much.

[I-10east]

^^^It was a 'joke'.

[ChriswUfGator]

Pretty hard not to side with Khan, 12% of the money he contributed actually made it to where he thought it was going. I mean, really, not that it's apparently stopping them, but what do you say to that?

[Bridges]

Sides don't have to be taken.  Which is why it is weird that some of this is playing out in public. 

What should be the lesson in all this is that KYN had all their eggs in one basket.  They should have been developing other financing and funding channels.  Funds and those that supply them fall through all the time.  Important to have multiple plans for all kinds of situations.

It's just a business.   

[Andy]

Khan had a guy approving expenditures, we know that much. I don't blame him for not being super happy with such a small percentage going towards seed money, but he has some of the blame for letting it go this far, and he has (in my opinion) the lions share of fault for essentially shutting the entire operation down.

It really seems like a better agreement could have been reached once Khan figured all this out. Put stipulations on how the money is spent. I'm positive they would rather take a greatly regulated donation rather than have to shutter the whole damn store. What gets me is that the people he's actually hurting by proceeding this way isn't just the owners/operators of KYN. It's also the businesses they were 'accelerating' and the startup culture that Jacksonville is JUST starting to embrace in big, internationally notable ways.

It just bums me out, really.

EDIT: And BTW I'm not trying to argue the idea that he owed anything to anybody, or that he HAS to continue working with anyone he's working with. He's no altruist. But it just seemed like for somebody that has been putting out lots of pro-Jacksonville steps and seemingly investing in the future of the city this is a big step back that didn't need to exactly go the way it did. It could have been a speed bump instead of a road block.

[ronchamblin]

Insomnia.

One Spark !  What is it?  What has it been?  What should it be?  What can it be? 

I've read only short bits about One Spark, and unfortunately I did not get around much to view the various exhibits -- so some specifics I convey might be off, and some assumptions might show my ignorance.   

The name is good.  It's positive and catchy, sorta like Starbucks.  "Spark" and "Star" are positive words.  One would not use Two Bit ... or Dumb Show ... etc.  One Spark.  The name has provided good momentum to the original growth.     

It is my understanding that the purpose of One Spark was to match new and promising entrepreneurial ventures with money so that a business that might not ever be, would be.

I suspect that for every 100 ideas offered for consideration, only one or two would possess the attributes allowing eventual long-term success -- after reasonable injections of hard work and funding.  All of the remaining hopefuls are destined to fail because they lack from the start, the fundamental ingredients for success. 

So the goal of One Spark is to discover and support the ideas having the attributes for long-term success.  How is this done?  First by voting via the attendees of One Spark, and then by select judges sitting close to the fund sources?

No matter its fundamental purpose, any event having many thousands of attendees will have components of food, music, and social interaction, fun, and hoopla.  I suspect that anyone organizing an event like One Spark would wish to ensure that the fundamental purpose of it -- the serious business of cultivating, judging, and funding potential ventures -- is held tight in focus so that the event does not drift to approximate a typical music or beer festival. 

If one wants a music / beer festival four times a year to generate revenue for the core businesses .. then by all means, do so, but I suggest that one not destroy the essence, and ultimately the success of, one event, by allowing it to become degraded by frivolous scrambles for daily revenue gains at any cost to the quality of the event's original purpose.     

The event becomes vulnerable to failure if the essence of it drifts from the original purpose, or if fund contributors suspect that available funds are not being used in the most effective and efficient way.  The success also suffers as the ambiguous or low criteria for ideas fails to encourage and promote reasonably high standards of preparation, skill, ingenuity, and creativity.

Besides providing the necessary funding to the rare project that is viable, a very important benefit of One Spark has been to encourage individuals to "think" about the possibility of becoming an entrepreneur.  And even though their first submittal did not go the distance, the frame of mind gained might result in a future success. 

This latter aspect of One Spark is important to our society -- as it counters the trend of depending increasingly on the mega producer / manufacturer in China or Mexico -- and it counters dependency on the ruthless monster Amazon ...the monopolistic ... the cancerous destroyer of this country's economic stability ... the leach upon the sensibilities of the consumer ... the company that abuses it workers ... wounding their dignity and health with demands approaching that of slavery. The encouragement and realization of new local business ventures brings energy and productivity to our local economy, thereby making us less vulnerable to the collapse of the monolithic infrastructures being created by corporate monsters.

So One Spark could be said to have generated an optimism about doing something positive ... creating something instead of assuming that only "others" create and innovate.  Any eventual success ... any project eventually realized begins with a spark of insight ... a glimpse of a possibility.  One Spark promotes a mood of cultivating that initial idea ... that seed, so that it grows to full operation ... to production of something solid and profitable.

I've always been concerned about a possible drift of One Spark toward a general "festival" -- thereby losing its focus on the fundamental goal of encouraging the creation of solid and viable business ventures.  Those venues in the core city who would have One Spark every six months simply because it generated revenue for their businesses forget that the survival of One Spark depends on its ability to actually encourage, discover, and fund solid success of businesses. 

Having One Spark too frequently, while giving temporary revenue benefits to the local core businesses, might eventually destroy the event because the high frequency of it does not allow enough time for potential innovators to recover ... to gain or accumulate ideas, to cultivate them, and work them to end products for judging.  Quality of entries is the goal, not quantity.  Quality usually requires time. 

The issue of quality over quantity ... of immediate but short term revenue gains over greater, long-term gains ...  is why I've contemplated the idea of having One Spark every two years instead of every year.  Would One Spark, if held every two years, become stronger, more enduring, and ultimately more successful, as a consequence of more time for recovery, to build anticipation and excitement, for work on projects, and to generate funds?

Any pleasure, if taken too often, becomes less pleasurable ... ron 2014 

Ultimately, since I'm dreaming about possibilities, I would like to see the One Spark idea be targeted directly to the infill of one or two buildings in the core each year -- as a consequence of the success of a One Spark winner.  In other words, if the final result of a winner is that of forming a small manufacturing facility, or a service company, or any company suitable for operation in the core, it would be great to tie the contract to the infill of a core building.   

[SunKing]

Pretty hard not to side with Khan, 12% of the money he contributed actually made it to where he thought it was going. I mean, really, not that it's apparently stopping them, but what do you say to that?

I agree.  And besides that, what were some of the companies being funded by Kyn?  The only one I saw that was quoted in a previous article was a retail website based out of Tampa that sold organically made bridal products.   Yawn.

[thelakelander]

Having One Spark too frequently, while giving temporary revenue benefits to the local core businesses, might eventually destroy the event because the high frequency of it does not allow enough time for potential innovators to recover ... to gain or accumulate ideas, to cultivate them, and work them to end products for judging.  Quality of entries is the goal, not quantity.  Quality usually requires time. 

The issue of quality over quantity ... of immediate but short term revenue gains over greater, long-term gains ...  is why I've contemplated the idea of having One Spark every two years instead of every year.  Would One Spark, if held every two years, become stronger, more enduring, and ultimately more successful, as a consequence of more time for recovery, to build anticipation and excitement, for work on projects, and to generate funds?

I don't see the harm in an annual event.  I also don't see how anything changes for the better by having it bi-annually.  What would be damaging is if the fallout between this group and Khan continues to play out in public, thus ruining their credibility in the process. That, in turn, will ultimately result in less creators participating.

[ronchamblin]

Having One Spark too frequently, while giving temporary revenue benefits to the local core businesses, might eventually destroy the event because the high frequency of it does not allow enough time for potential innovators to recover ... to gain or accumulate ideas, to cultivate them, and work them to end products for judging.  Quality of entries is the goal, not quantity.  Quality usually requires time. 

The issue of quality over quantity ... of immediate but short term revenue gains over greater, long-term gains ...  is why I've contemplated the idea of having One Spark every two years instead of every year.  Would One Spark, if held every two years, become stronger, more enduring, and ultimately more successful, as a consequence of more time for recovery, to build anticipation and excitement, for work on projects, and to generate funds?

I don't see the harm in an annual event.  I also don't see how anything changes for the better by having it bi-annually.  What would be damaging is if the fallout between this group and Khan continues to play out in public, thus ruining their credibility in the process. That, in turn, will ultimately result in less creators participating.

Of course, every aspect, input, or policy affects positively or negatively the quality an event achieves over time.  I agree that a possible awkward fallout could temporarily weaken the One Spark concept.  However, if the significant entities controlling it convey to the public a renewed focus on the original purpose of One Spark, then even with the "learning experience" -- the potential damage as a consequence of misunderstandings and error -- from the first two events will be only temporary setbacks to what could eventually become a very positive impact on the city.  The assurance of focus on the original purpose, along with an open integrity of One Spark finances, should encourage creators to act with positive energy in the event.

[marty904]

Sides don't have to be taken.  Which is why it is weird that some of this is playing out in public. 

What should be the lesson in all this is that KYN had all their eggs in one basket.  They should have been developing other financing and funding channels.  Funds and those that supply them fall through all the time.  Important to have multiple plans for all kinds of situations.

It's just a business.   

+100

[tufsu1]

Pretty hard not to side with Khan, 12% of the money he contributed actually made it to where he thought it was going. I mean, really, not that it's apparently stopping them, but what do you say to that?

The results are clearly not good, but I think the 12% is misleading.  KYN provided space, supplies (printers and such) as well as mentoring to each of the creators.  I think that money shows up as KYN expenses but they were really incubator costs that could be spread to each of the business ventures.

[thelakelander]

So you're putting 100% of the blame of this fallout on Elton? I'm not sure that's fair either.