PDA

View Full Version : Possible London Franchise?


Giantsfan1080
10-23-2009, 11:35 AM
“Ultimately where it ends up? I think it’s very practical,
if the interest continues to grow, that we could have an NFL
franchise in London,” Goodell said. A franchise might move or
the league could establish a new team, he said.


http://wbztv.com/sports/nfl.london.games.2.1266625.html

And a possible game in Nigeria


NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said Tuesday the league has discussed the possibility of holding a game in Nigeria.
Former Chiefs running back Christian Okoye has been pushing for the league to hold a game in his native country.
"It's something that holds some interest to us," Goodell said.
"Not only because a number of players come from that area, but more importantly because there is a lot of interest in our game over there."

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2009/10/roger-goodell-nfl-has-discussed-holding-a-game-in-nigeria/1

Goodell needs to stop all this stuff. I wish we had Tagliabue back.

Gay Ork Wang
10-23-2009, 11:49 AM
i want a german franchise

Giantsfan1080
10-23-2009, 11:53 AM
i want a german franchise

There would be you and how many others? It's not sustainable to have a franchise in London or any other European city, not to mention all the logistics of time change and so on.

BeerBaron
10-23-2009, 11:55 AM
There would be you and how many others? It's not sustainable to have a franchise in London or any other European city, not to mention all the logistics of time change and so on.

And it would totally eff with what I feel is an ideal divisional and conference structure to add another team....And to simply move one really screws over the other teams in its division who suddenly have to cross the Atlantic for that game.

Gay Ork Wang
10-23-2009, 11:55 AM
There would be you and how many others? It's not sustainable to have a franchise in London or any other European city, not to mention all the logistics of time change and so on.
i know it would. I just want NFL E back

Bengalsrocket
10-23-2009, 11:56 AM
There would be you and how many others? It's not sustainable to have a franchise in London or any other European city, not to mention all the logistics of time change and so on.

I think the scheduling conflict is what would make it so rough, not the fan base. It's already so rough for teams inside the U.S. to have to travel across the country for a game and then head back, I think overseas would just be awful for so many teams.

Giantsfan1080
10-23-2009, 11:56 AM
I hope this is Goodell just yapping and we never really see this.

Giantsfan1080
10-23-2009, 11:57 AM
I think the scheduling conflict is what would make it so rough, not the fan base. It's already so rough for teams inside the U.S. to have to travel across the country for a game and then head back, I think overseas would just be awful for so many teams.

The American football seasn would be directly competing with the English Premier League. The fans there just wouldn't care nearly as much I feel.

JT Jag
10-23-2009, 11:59 AM
You have to do a test-run first.

Hold one game in London for 16 of the 17 weeks for two straight years. Two years, so that every team in the NFL could concede one home game.

If it's still selling out at the end of the two years, then you consider it.

But it would prove to be a logistics nightmare anyway.

Bengalsrocket
10-23-2009, 12:00 PM
The American football seasn would be directly competing with the English Premier League. The fans there just wouldn't care nearly as much I feel.

Yes, sorry, I worded my post poorly. I think the fan base would struggle, but still be sustainable, similar to other extremely small market teams like Jacksonville or Buffalo.

Again, I agree with everything you said in your original post, I just think the scheduling part of it is the absolute biggest.

DoughBoy
10-23-2009, 12:05 PM
The day a Superbowl or a current NFL team moves overseas is the day I quit watching pro football. Its like Goodell doesn't even give a **** about what we think, I bet if you were to take a poll 90% of Americans are opposed to this. I dont even care if we play a few REGULAR season games over there. Just start an alternate leauge with another countries own players.

619
10-23-2009, 12:06 PM
I have always had trouble understanding why this kinda stuff is a bad thing. Look at other North American sports like hockey and basketball and what they have been able to accomplish overseas in terms of globalizing their game - football should be no different.

The NFL is a brand and they should have every right to exhaust all possible business ventures they see as profitable. The Nigeria game, in particular, seems like an exciting avenue for the league to undertake. The African continent is a rapidly growing, evolving market in specific regions like Nigeria. It is football crazy (of the other kind), however, from what I know this sport is not as embedded in the national landscape as other regions of the continent, so there is an opportunity here to exploit.

The London franchise, on the other hand, is far too premature at this point to consider. My opinion is that the "interest" there is often overestimated.

HawkeyeFan
10-23-2009, 12:11 PM
I hope this is Goodell just yapping and we never really see this.

As do I. It'd completely take way from the United States national game. You don't see MLB over there do you? No, it'd be incredibly hard on the players and would be down right stupid.

Wootylicous
10-23-2009, 12:21 PM
Since when Football is property of the Americans ? I find it kind of funny that Goodell would base his decisions on what people think. If it makes money and give the sport more visibility over the world why not ? I just don't understand where the hates is from. Game overseas are good for the sport and game outside of the US too.

Bucs_Rule
10-23-2009, 12:25 PM
The teams that the NFL propose join the division with the Euro team will raise hell. It would put them at a significant disdvantage.

HawkeyeFan
10-23-2009, 12:31 PM
Since when Football is property of the Americans ? I find it kind of funny that Goodell would base his decisions on what people think. If it makes money and give the sport more visibility over the world why not ? I just don't understand where the hates is from. Game overseas are good for the sport and game outside of the US too.Since 1920.

Yeah A GAME over seas. Not a franchise. It's a nice midseason vacation for players, but I'm sure a lot of them wouldn't prefer to live there.

Gay Ork Wang
10-23-2009, 12:33 PM
Since 1920.

Yeah A GAME over seas. Not a franchise. It's a nice midseason vacation for players, but I'm sure a lot of them wouldn't prefer to live there.
OH RLY?

i assume paper and pasta belongs to china then

HawkeyeFan
10-23-2009, 12:34 PM
OH RLY?

i assume paper and pasta belongs to china then

Your talking a food, this is a an NFL franchise.

FlyingElvis
10-23-2009, 12:35 PM
The Joyford Hill Jaguars?


The NFL brand & the individual teams are what matters to Goodell. I find it amusing that anyone would think the opinion of the fan should have any impact on what essentially is a financial decision.


Honestly, anyone who claims they will stop being a fan because there's a team based in a non-US city is full of ****. And even if I'm wrong on that it doesn't matter much as the league would gain several fans abroad for every domestic market fan who stopped watching.

Brent
10-23-2009, 12:36 PM
They gave Football a chance in Europe. That worked out well...

Wootylicous
10-23-2009, 12:37 PM
Can we talk about the NHL ? Do Canadians owns Hockey ? Hell no.

Worst argument ever.

Gay Ork Wang
10-23-2009, 12:38 PM
Your talking a food, this is a an NFL franchise.
im talking food, youre talking about sports. Soccer doesnt belong to europe either

HawkeyeFan
10-23-2009, 12:39 PM
im talking food, youre talking about sports. Soccer doesnt belong to europe either

Soccer is also a world sport, and so his hockey.


Are there even American Football teams in HS in Europe?

awfullyquiet
10-23-2009, 12:41 PM
They gave Football a chance in Europe. That worked out well...

it did work out well.

Gay Ork Wang
10-23-2009, 12:45 PM
Soccer is also a world sport, and so his hockey.


Are there even American Football teams in HS in Europe?
this argument is getting worse and worse.

we dont have sports in our high schools. we hardly have any hockey clubs

why not try to develop american football into a world sport?

HawkeyeFan
10-23-2009, 12:48 PM
this argument is getting worse and worse.

we dont have sports in our high schools. we hardly have any hockey clubs

why not try to develop american football into a world sport?


They have tried, NFL Europe, and every game I watched it seemed like barely 1/4 of the stadium had fans.

Wootylicous
10-23-2009, 12:48 PM
There are football teams in France. There is a minor and senior league there. and I'm sure there is football all over Europe.

Gay Ork Wang
10-23-2009, 12:49 PM
They have tried, NFL Europe, and every game I watched it seemed like barely 1/4 of the stadium had fans.
its the same with most of the soccer games over here.

Wootylicous
10-23-2009, 12:49 PM
They have tried, NFL Europe, and every game I watched it seemed like barely 1/4 of the stadium had fans.

Who wanna see 5th stringer play football ? nobody.

HawkeyeFan
10-23-2009, 12:49 PM
its the same with most of the soccer games over here.

Then how and the hell would the NFL make money off of that?

FlyingElvis
10-23-2009, 12:50 PM
They have tried, NFL Europe, and every game I watched it seemed like barely 1/4 of the stadium had fans.

You don't think the results might be different if the fans there were able to watch NFL caliber players rather than the B team?

Wootylicous
10-23-2009, 12:50 PM
Seriously Hawkeye why would you think they would go back to London if they didn't make money ? like seriously.

HawkeyeFan
10-23-2009, 12:51 PM
You don't think the results might be different if the fans there were able to watch NFL calibur player rather than the B team?

A chance is a chance.

HawkeyeFan
10-23-2009, 12:51 PM
Seriously Hawkeye why would you think they would go back to London if they didn't make money ? like seriously.

We're talking a franchise, not one game.

Gay Ork Wang
10-23-2009, 12:52 PM
Then how and the hell would the NFL make money off of that?
soccer makes money.

seriously the advertising is horrible, nobody does **** about it.

NFLE was basically like MLS. Id bet you anything that if a premier league game woudl be played over in the states, it would get a lot more attention than MLS teams

awfullyquiet
10-23-2009, 12:53 PM
As do I. It'd completely take way from the United States national game. You don't see MLB over there do you? No, it'd be incredibly hard on the players and would be down right stupid.

Japan. Baseball. Korea. Baseball. Venezuala. Baseball. I don't know where you've been (probably Iowa), but, the MLB is globalizing.

The NBA. Globalizing.

I think you're just holed up in this xenophobic notion of wanting to maintain superior bloodlines in the sport. ITS MINE.

No dude, it's not yours.

NFLE was basically like MLS. Id bet you anything that if a premier league game woudl be played over in the states, it would get a lot more attention than MLS teams

agreed. the potential was there, and is there, but isn't properly utilized. b-level players = b level results. why do you think that UFL is on versus and not on the major networks. because ******* j.p. losman is starting and not peyton manning.

HawkeyeFan
10-23-2009, 12:54 PM
I hope the hell I'm wrong and looking a Europeans point of view, I can see how I'd want a team over there if your a big fan.

But from my personal opinion, I just don't see it working and would hope they'd do an expansion team, not move a team already in place over here over.

For you, I hope I eat crow and you get your wish. But I just can't see a benefit from it.

Gay Ork Wang
10-23-2009, 12:56 PM
I hope the hell I'm wrong and looking a Europeans point of view, I can see how I'd want a team over there if your a big fan.

But from my personal opinion, I just don't see it working and would hope they'd do an expansion team, not move a team already in place over here over.

For you, I hope I eat crow and you get your wish. But I just can't see a benefit from it.
it is a high risk thing, but the reward is a lot higher.

The Risk is that nobody goes, they spend a lot of money and need to shut it down.

The reward on the other hand could lead to overall globalization and that would lead to a lot more money

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
10-23-2009, 12:56 PM
I have always had trouble understanding why this kinda stuff is a bad thing. Look at other North American sports like hockey and basketball and what they have been able to accomplish overseas in terms of globalizing their game - football should be no different.

The NFL is a brand and they should have every right to exhaust all possible business ventures they see as profitable. The Nigeria game, in particular, seems like an exciting avenue for the league to undertake. The African continent is a rapidly growing, evolving market in specific regions like Nigeria. It is football crazy (of the other kind), however, from what I know this sport is not as embedded in the national landscape as other regions of the continent, so there is an opportunity here to exploit.

The London franchise, on the other hand, is far too premature at this point to consider. My opinion is that the "interest" there is often overestimated.

Hockey and basketball are "global" because different countries have their own independent leagues. You don't see NHL or NBA franchises in Europe or Asia because it's not feasible.

Also I put global in quotes because neither are truly global. Basketball is growing very quickly, but it's mainly only big in Spain, Eastern Europe, China and South America. Hockey is only big in North/Eastern Europe. Neither sport has been able to compete in England. When was the last time you heard of a top English prospect in hockey or basketball without them growing up in a place where those sports are big?

Also both of those sports have a significant advantage over football: They're Olympic sports. This gives the sports serious overseas exposure football doesn't get. Overseas fans got to see Lemieux, Gretzky, Jordan, Magic, etc. They're even competitive now, no country will ever compete with the USA in football unless it all of a sudden becomes by far the #1 sport in China, which will not happen.

Gay Ork Wang
10-23-2009, 12:57 PM
china would suck at american football, they all be incredible smart players that cant execute cause the black guys would overrun them

HawkeyeFan
10-23-2009, 12:58 PM
it is a high risk thing, but the reward is a lot higher.

The Risk is that nobody goes, they spend a lot of money and need to shut it down.

The reward on the other hand could lead to overall globalization and that would lead to a lot more money

I understand, but I also understand they have more to worry about right now than moving to Europe. Such as who goes to Los Angeles, how to work out this CBA crap, how to start getting officials to call a penalty during the game rather than have the player fined for it after.

drowe
10-23-2009, 12:59 PM
Well, Goodell, to me, seems like an ego-maniac. He followed guys like Rozelle and Tagliabue, who did great things for the leage. And, he inherited the most successful league in the country.

But, it wasn't good enough for him. My impression of Goodell, is a jealous little brother with inferiority complex. He saw what Rozelle did for the leage, and saw what Tagliabue did for the league, and instead of being happy that things are running smoothly, he just thinks, "how can i leave my mark on football?"

So, he decided he'd try for the international route. Americans love football...why can't the rest of the world. but, he's completely ignoring the fact that a team has to give up a home game every year. and the expansion thing is just crazy. 32 is a good round number. the next logical number would be 36. 6 divisions of 6 teams. And, even then ya have the issue of 8 teams having to fly halfway around the world in the middle of their season. and, the NFL KNOWS this is an issue. that's why they have the Pats and Bucs going to London before their bye week. think that'll be an option everytime this alleged London team has a home game?

I don't like Goodell. I don't like his intentions and i don't like where his priorities are. I know the labor dispute isn't his fault and he just inherited it...but, I hope he gets blamed. I hope the perception is that the NFL had 20 years of peace and prosperity...then a looming lockout within 2 years of Goodell taking over.

The guy isn't gonna be happy until every player in the league is a faceless boyscout and American football has replaced soccer as the #1 sport around the globe.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
10-23-2009, 12:59 PM
Japan. Baseball. Korea. Baseball. Venezuala. Baseball. I don't know where you've been (probably Iowa), but, the MLB is globalizing.

The NBA. Globalizing.

I think you're just holed up in this xenophobic notion of wanting to maintain superior bloodlines in the sport. ITS MINE.

No dude, it's not yours.



agreed. the potential was there, and is there, but isn't properly utilized. b-level players = b level results. why do you think that UFL is on versus and not on the major networks. because ******* j.p. losman is starting and not peyton manning.

Baseball is globalizing, Major League Baseball is staying in North America, although I could see it spreading to the Carribean and/or South America because there's little time difference, just long flights.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
10-23-2009, 01:01 PM
china would suck at american football, they all be incredible smart players that cant execute cause the black guys would overrun them

China has 3 or 4 times as many people as the USA. If football was as big there as it is here, trust me, they'd field an international team easily able to compete with the Americans.

awfullyquiet
10-23-2009, 01:04 PM
Baseball is globalizing, Major League Baseball is staying in North America, although I could see it spreading to the Carribean and/or South America because there's little time difference, just long flights.

puerto rico especially.

but, that's neither here nor there...

yes, travel distance is the only thing that's keeping the league (and all leagues) from globalization. if you could play a team from london, and have it not be a 14 hour flight from LA to London... it'd be just a matter of when and where... that's the difference.

Shahin
10-23-2009, 01:04 PM
China has 3 or 4 times as many people as the USA. If football was as big there as it is here, trust me, they'd field an international team easily able to compete with the Americans.

lol, no. (ten letters)

HawkeyeFan
10-23-2009, 01:05 PM
Japan. Baseball. Korea. Baseball. Venezuala. Baseball. I don't know where you've been (probably Iowa), but, the MLB is globalizing.

The NBA. Globalizing.

I think you're just holed up in this xenophobic notion of wanting to maintain superior bloodlines in the sport. ITS MINE.

No dude, it's not yours.
Baseball in general has been global for awhile, it's not a secret. But the MLB has been North America for along time too. Teams in in Asia, and South America, and others have there own independent leagues which make it easier to globalize. The same goes to basketball, already in Euorpe and Asia is gaining on it, through independent leagues. The NFL had NFL Europe, yet, not All-Pro players, but it was football.


agreed. the potential was there, and is there, but isn't properly utilized. b-level players = b level results. why do you think that UFL is on versus and not on the major networks. because ******* j.p. losman is starting and not peyton manning.
So, for it to work, the NFL would have to consistently have an All-Pro team in Europe? And the first few years of the franchise, if it doesn't succeed, is going to fail?

Gay Ork Wang
10-23-2009, 01:06 PM
China has 3 or 4 times as many people as the USA. If football was as big there as it is here, trust me, they'd field an international team easily able to compete with the Americans.
i think its 6 times, but i dont quite think it would happen

KCJ58
10-23-2009, 01:07 PM
**** Europe get us a team in LA

FlyingElvis
10-23-2009, 01:10 PM
But, it wasn't good enough for him. My impression of Goodell, is a jealous little brother with inferiority complex. He saw what Rozelle did for the leage, and saw what Tagliabue did for the league, and instead of being happy that things are running smoothly, he just thinks, "how can i leave my mark on football?"



The mark of a good executive is to not be "happy that things are running smoothly" and be complacent. Goodell is trying to further the brand which is a consideration towards which any stong exec should always work.

Welcome to the world of business. You may not like what he's doing or how he's doing it, but it's a smart thing for him to be doing. Your personal feelings toward the guy are clouding your ability to objectively assess his vision and actions.

Gay Ork Wang
10-23-2009, 01:10 PM
**** Europe get us a team in LA
zomg zey tried in LA and it didnt workzzzzzz

awfullyquiet
10-23-2009, 01:10 PM
So, for it to work, the NFL would have to consistently have an All-Pro team in Europe? And the first few years of the franchise, if it doesn't succeed, is going to fail?

I never said that.

FWIW, look at how many AMERICAN TEAMS, on AMERICAN SOIL, are going to fail in the future if **** doesn't happen. how many teams STILL manage to garner fans even though they've consistently sucked (see detroit, oakland, cleveland, and the houston texans).

LizardState
10-23-2009, 01:14 PM
Buffalo moving to Toronto is a lot more likely, even over the strenuous objections of Bills 91-yr-old owner Ralph Wilson & the Argonauts, the NFL has been trying to eat into the CFL fanbase & Canadian mktplace for decades. The 2-3 scheduled so-called home games for the Bills in Toronto are a clear indicator of this direction Goddell & the NFL are going.

btw there's been American FB among the armed forces stationed in Germany for yrs, ever since the '50s at both the active duty military & some HS levels, that's why, with the possible exception of the Barcelona Dragons, the most successful NFLE teams were in Deutschland. There was an established fanbase who knew the rules & were familiar with some of the NFL teams.

Other efforts at putting FB in Europe have been spectacular failures in their time (LOLs, takes drink from London Monarchs World Bowl I WFL Champions
coffee cup).

FlyingElvis
10-23-2009, 01:15 PM
zomg zey tried in LA and it didnt workzzzzzz

Several times, at that. If the time difference can be successfully worked out (which I doubt) then I see no reason why LA should have another chance before trying a city like London.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
10-23-2009, 01:16 PM
Well, Goodell, to me, seems like an ego-maniac. He followed guys like Rozelle and Tagliabue, who did great things for the leage. And, he inherited the most successful league in the country.

But, it wasn't good enough for him. My impression of Goodell, is a jealous little brother with inferiority complex. He saw what Rozelle did for the leage, and saw what Tagliabue did for the league, and instead of being happy that things are running smoothly, he just thinks, "how can i leave my mark on football?"

So, he decided he'd try for the international route. Americans love football...why can't the rest of the world. but, he's completely ignoring the fact that a team has to give up a home game every year. and the expansion thing is just crazy. 32 is a good round number. the next logical number would be 36. 6 divisions of 6 teams. And, even then ya have the issue of 8 teams having to fly halfway around the world in the middle of their season. and, the NFL KNOWS this is an issue. that's why they have the Pats and Bucs going to London before their bye week. think that'll be an option everytime this alleged London team has a home game?

I don't like Goodell. I don't like his intentions and i don't like where his priorities are. I know the labor dispute isn't his fault and he just inherited it...but, I hope he gets blamed. I hope the perception is that the NFL had 20 years of peace and prosperity...then a looming lockout within 2 years of Goodell taking over.

The guy isn't gonna be happy until every player in the league is a faceless boyscout and American football has replaced soccer as the #1 sport around the globe.

You mentioning soccer brings up another point for me. If you're in a 3rd world country, all you need is a ball to play soccer. Play it on the streets, play it in a field, whatever. You get a ball, you kick it around, at its' very simplest, that is soccer. Basketball, not much more complicated, but you need a hoop. Bounce the ball, shoot it, that's basketball at its' simplest.

Football at its' simplest? How does that work. Okay so you have a ball... you can throw it to a friend. So now you two can play QB/WR. But it's far more complicated to get into blocking, tackling, etc. It's difficult to take football to its simplest.

Let's look at it another way: You're abducted by an alien. He's curious about all these sports played here on earth. He shows you a video of soccer and asks for a quick explanation. You tell him that only the guy in the funky shirt can touch the ball with his hands, everyone else tries to kick it into the other teams' goal. Basketball? You bounce it, and you try to put it into the other team's goal. Hockey? You hit the puck with a stick and try to put it into the other team's goal. Those guys in combat suits try to stop the puck. Football? The team with the ball tries to pass the goal line, the team without it tries to stop them. The team with the ball can throw it or run it. "But what about those big guys, why aren't they trying to catch the ball?"

So at it's root it's more complicated than other sports. There are so many things going on on every single play that someone could see and ask about. You don't get that in other sports. So it's harder for outside fans to really catch on.

Anyway, I think globalizing football is a great idea. It increases the talent pool, improving the game. But I don't think it would be a good idea to put an NFL team in London.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
10-23-2009, 01:23 PM
i think its 6 times, but i dont quite think it would happen

We're talking 53 players, here. I don't think it's a stretch at all to assume that a football crazed China can't come up with 53 players to match the 53 best America can come up with. With 6 times the talent pool.

Maybe Next Year Millen2
10-23-2009, 01:25 PM
Don't see how it would work. The London team would be screwed not the teams in their division. The team in their division would only have 1 game where they have to travel far. Basically the travel takes away a day so its like you play on Monday night and then on Sunday the next week for the teams that travel to London. The London team would have 8 away games in a very different time zone plus a long trip back before home games.

ElectricEye
10-23-2009, 01:26 PM
Let's get a team in Canada before we get a team in Europe. That's a big step. Let the NBA test that one for sports first, then we'll talk.

Europe's interest in football is growing, but it's not big enough to take a chance by giving them a franchise yet. Hell, I'm not sure they would even WANT one yet. That's a huge, huge step. That's at the very least, twenty years away. I'm all for the expansion of the game to a global level, and Goodell is smart to try to expand, but this is way premature. I don't think he's necessarily talking about doing this in a couple of years though. Sounds like more of a long term goal.

drowe
10-23-2009, 01:36 PM
The mark of a good executive is to not be "happy that things are running smoothly" and be complacent. Goodell is trying to further the brand which is a consideration towards which any stong exec should always work.

Welcome to the world of business. You may not like what he's doing or how he's doing it, but it's a smart thing for him to be doing. Your personal feelings toward the guy are clouding your ability to objectively assess his vision and actions.

sorry, but expanding to europe...or asia..or africa..or underwater, or the moon is only good for goodell and the 32 members of the billionaire boys club, aka, the owners. it screws the players. and it screws the fans.

I know very well that the NFL is a business. But, that only goes so far.

We're force-feeding football to europe, while countless cities in the US would LOVE to have an NFL team.

and, it disrupts the competitive balance. what happens if a team moves to london? Draft Prospects would refuse to sign. traded players would refuse to sign. free agents would list the team 32 out of 32. not all the time. but enough to put the franchise at a huge competitive disadvantage.

christ, there's already the issue of east coast teams having a terrible time playing on the west coast. what do you think happens when we need to schedule 8 games in london. every team on the schedule is gonna want it in front of a bye, or not at all.

it opens up a huge problem for the draft, free agency, scheduling, logistics...all so we can put a team in a place where we're basing the interest level on the fact that the 1 game a year we play there is a big deal.

but, at least the owners will get a little richer.

Giantsfan1080
10-23-2009, 01:44 PM
What no one brought up is there also would be a monetary issue. Would the players be paid in American dollars or British Pounds? If they get paid in american money and then get taxed for living in Great Britain it would really make no sense. It would the throw the salary cap off big time if there is still one.

Brent
10-23-2009, 02:01 PM
Hockey and basketball are "global" because different countries have their own independent leagues. You don't see NHL or NBA franchises in Europe or Asia because it's not feasible.
I didnt want to let this to go unnoticed as it's the second-to-last post on page one, and pretty much how I feel about this.

Chief49er
10-23-2009, 02:02 PM
Hell no, Hell no!

FlyingElvis
10-23-2009, 02:17 PM
sorry, but expanding to europe...or asia..or africa..or underwater, or the moon is only good for goodell and the 32 members of the billionaire boys club, aka, the owners. it screws the players. and it screws the fans.

I know very well that the NFL is a business. But, that only goes so far.

We're force-feeding football to europe, while countless cities in the US would LOVE to have an NFL team.

and, it disrupts the competitive balance. what happens if a team moves to london? Draft Prospects would refuse to sign. traded players would refuse to sign. free agents would list the team 32 out of 32. not all the time. but enough to put the franchise at a huge competitive disadvantage.

christ, there's already the issue of east coast teams having a terrible time playing on the west coast. what do you think happens when we need to schedule 8 games in london. every team on the schedule is gonna want it in front of a bye, or not at all.

it opens up a huge problem for the draft, free agency, scheduling, logistics...all so we can put a team in a place where we're basing the interest level on the fact that the 1 game a year we play there is a big deal.

but, at least the owners will get a little richer.

I agree with all of this except the screwing the fans part, but it is not relevant.

You may not like Goodell but he's a very good exec. You're twisting what he's doing and projecting a "I want my name in lights" motivation on the guy incorrectly & unjustly, in my opinion.

RAVENS/WIZARDS/ORIOLES
10-23-2009, 02:34 PM
**** LONDON!!!!!!! DEY DOOK ARE JERBS!!!!!

If it happens I would hate to be in that division. That means you go there once a year lol

vikes_28
10-23-2009, 02:54 PM
I don't see why the NATIONAL Football League would want to start a franchise in Europe. I can see maybe a Canadian team, maybe even a team in Mexico City, or Peurto Rico, but not in Europe yet. I just don't see that happening. I don't see the NFL leaving North America for a long time. This is the National Football League, not the International Football League. :/

D-Unit
10-23-2009, 02:58 PM
If the NFL expands another team within the US, they are just shifting fan interest. ...not really gaining a new NFL fan.

If they expand in another country, they gain an entire country of NFL fans.

It's all about the money folks. Never let that thought out of your brains.

Giantsfan1080
10-23-2009, 02:59 PM
I think everyone knows it's all about the money but the logistics of everything will not work.

D-Unit
10-23-2009, 02:59 PM
I don't see why the NATIONAL Football League would want to start a franchise in Europe. I can see maybe a Canadian team, maybe even a team in Mexico City, or Peurto Rico, but not in Europe yet. I just don't see that happening. I don't see the NFL leaving North America for a long time. This is the National Football League, not the International Football League. :/
Canada.... Mexico... Oh it's coming. Make no mistake.

Basileus777
10-23-2009, 03:02 PM
I don't see why the NATIONAL Football League would want to start a franchise in Europe. I can see maybe a Canadian team, maybe even a team in Mexico City, or Peurto Rico, but not in Europe yet. I just don't see that happening. I don't see the NFL leaving North America for a long time. This is the National Football League, not the International Football League. :/

:confused:

Shiver
10-23-2009, 03:11 PM
Mexico City has a chance, I would even suggest Toronto; but there is no way a franchise in London can travel (and its opponents) eight times and be competitive.

vikes_28
10-23-2009, 03:12 PM
:confused:

Let me re-phrase that post, I can see it happening maybe 10-20 years from now. Canada and Mexico are more realistic since they have about the same time zones as the United States. I just don't see a franchise in Europe for at least another 30 years. And Peurto Rico is United States territory. Therefore, there could be a team there soon.

DoughBoy
10-23-2009, 03:12 PM
The Joyford Hill Jaguars?


The NFL brand & the individual teams are what matters to Goodell. I find it amusing that anyone would think the opinion of the fan should have any impact on what essentially is a financial decision.


Honestly, anyone who claims they will stop being a fan because there's a team based in a non-US city is full of ****. And even if I'm wrong on that it doesn't matter much as the league would gain several fans abroad for every domestic market fan who stopped watching.

Im not full of ****. I would cease being a fan. If they wanted to start a club made of athletes in Australia or France, Im cool with it, but telling a 22 year old that he has to live in a place he prob doesn't want to be in the first place is crazy. Goodell is a dumbass.

Giantsfan1080
10-23-2009, 03:14 PM
London is probably a more desirable place to live than half the American cities we have NFL Teams in. The problem would be the money issue though.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
10-23-2009, 03:16 PM
Also potentially securing visas.

FlyingElvis
10-23-2009, 03:18 PM
Im not full of ****. I would cease being a fan. If they wanted to start a club made of athletes in Australia or France, Im cool with it, but telling a 22 year old that he has to live in a place he prob doesn't want to be in the first place is crazy. Goodell is a dumbass.

More power to you, then. I can't even begin to understand what, exactly, you are a fan of now that would be so severly impacted by a team in London or some other non U.S. city.

DoughBoy
10-23-2009, 03:21 PM
More power to you, then. I can't even begin to understand what, exactly, you are a fan of now that would be so severly impacted by a team in London or some other non U.S. city.

Tough to explain, It just pisses the hell out of me.

DoughBoy
10-23-2009, 03:28 PM
Also what FA would want to sign a contract overseas if they could play in the states? It would be unfair to the team, because even thier own players would likely leave the first chance they got.

wordofi
10-23-2009, 03:36 PM
If London gets a team, that's ******* ********. What team wants to travel across the Atlantic, and then travel back to the US?

brat316
10-23-2009, 03:53 PM
He is just talking, in order to create a buzz. He provided no time line or anything. Saying a new franchise might be established, could be like 10 years from now.

Taglibue brought the NFL to where it is today and thats how it makes so much revenue.

Now Goodel, other than trying to improve the NFL image, is trying expand a product, and make maximum profit.

He also talked about having a superbowl one day in London, doesn't mean it will happen or when it will happen. One of his key jobs is to keep the NFL running and profitable.

awfullyquiet
10-23-2009, 04:00 PM
We're force-feeding football to europe, while countless cities in the US would LOVE to have an NFL team.

not caring if you're going down that marxist road... but a lot of cities in the US cannot support a football team by the billionares boys club. see: Jacksonville.

drowe
10-23-2009, 04:36 PM
not caring if you're going down that marxist road... but a lot of cities in the US cannot support a football team by the billionares boys club. see: Jacksonville.

Well, that was only a small part of the argument. But, you're right. the 1 regular season game per year played in London has sold out, while Jacksonville currently can't sell out 1 home game.

But, are we really ready to call London football a success to the point that we'd expand from 1 game there to 1 entire franchise? isn't there a concern that the novelty wears off when they have 8 home games a year, and no rivals within the hemisphere?

And, if a team did move there, what does success look like? Best case scenario, the team is a massive success, sells out every game and broadens the appeal of American football in Europe. It's still a logistical nightmare and a competitive disadvantage if a London football team is the end game....

...and, if that's not the end game, what is? maybe a 4 team expansion to LA and 3 other European cities...well...now we're talkin'. a little more fair. a little more balanced. I'd still say good luck trying to get anybody to sign a long term contract for a European team. We're still moving from 1 National Football League to 2 factions of the league...with one faction having a clear long term advantage.

UKfan
10-23-2009, 05:10 PM
Living in England and having been to all of the games at Wembley (yes I will be there Sunday), I don't think that a franchise would be successful here.

The travel is an enormous issue, one which I personally would feel uncomfortable burdening teams with week in week out, but I think simply the cost of the games, should there be 8 a season at home would be suitably prohibitive that the games would not sell out.

Once a year, you can shell out 120 as I am to go to the game and guarantee a spot, or try and get the cheaper ones at 75, and that's great, but if the 8 games came, the minimum season ticket would be approx 550 you would think. Now soccer over here, which as has been mentioned overlaps with the NFL, has 19 games in their season ticket for approximately the same price, I think you can see what people would choose.

I'd be there, and a lot of fans would attend, but I certainly don't think it would be a sellout.

Not sure I have articulated this perfectly, but hope it gives an idea of the type of debate me and my friends have had on this.

I'll keep checking in on the thread, see how it goes, in the meantime this might be food for thought.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8321548.stm

Mr Kirkwood said: "We are talking to different teams to see who would be willing to do it."
Maximum capacity
He added: "We would like a game at the end of September and another at the end of October.
"If we go to two games the next step would be to go to four games per year. I would like to do that after the 2012 Olympics."
The two NFL games previously staged in London were at maximum capacity, while tickets for the game on 25 October sold even faster.

MarioPalmer
10-23-2009, 05:12 PM
The city of France should get a team

Giantsfan1080
10-23-2009, 05:14 PM
Thanks UKfan. You obviously would have the best insight into whether it's feasible or not. There is just no way that a London based football team could compete with the London based teams in the EPL.

UKfan
10-23-2009, 05:19 PM
I live 2 and a half hours away from Wembley, and undoubtedly would make the trip should there be a franchise, but a lot of the guys I know going this weekend also play in the BAFL as well (www.bafl.org.uk) and might not want to miss their own games as well should the franchise happen, despite Goodell's protetations, NFL still isn't enormous over here, the TV contracts were only agreed a week or so before the season started, and coverage has actually shrunk this year (less games on tv), regardless of the economy, that isn't good news really.

IDK, my gut feeling tells me it wouldn't work long term, if the 4 games a year happen as I linked to above, that would give a better idea I suppose.

vikes_28
10-23-2009, 06:22 PM
Maybe make it progressive over the next 6 years. Next year, have 4 games in Europe; 2011, have 8 games in Europe; 2012, have 12 games in Europe; 2014 have 16 games in Europe; 2016, have 20 games in Europe. After that, take a look at the attendance, revenue, and player satisfaction, then decipher whether or not it would be a good idea to have a franchise there. If they are selling out the stadium every week when its up to 16 games, then why not put a franchise there?

If I had it my way, I would say leave the sport of American football to the North American continent. I just don't see it working in Europe because of the time change. The team would have to fly across the ocean 8 games out of 16, and I just think it would be too tiring and too strenuous on the players. Mexico City, Toronto, and San Juan, all have really good markets for the sport. Let's try expanding there first.

bored of education
10-23-2009, 07:39 PM
It would be so moronic to have a franchise over there. **** England.

bigbluedefense
10-23-2009, 07:45 PM
Its just not feasible bc of transportation. Thats the main setback that will prevent it from ever happening. I feel that if they were able to somehow put a team there, it would profit more than ppl expect. It may not compete with Premier, but it would still generate some decent revenue.

It wouldve been sweet for London to have a team though. I think a lot of players would rather live in London than in some american cities with football teams.

I know I would. Id choose London over 90% of America in a heart beat.

A world exists outside of America. A very nice world. I love London.

TitanHope
10-23-2009, 07:51 PM
I can see a Canadian team or Mexico City team more than European, but it's possible.

The time difference isn't really that bad for a London game. They're 5 timezones later than EST, so a 1 PM EST game would be like a 6 PM game. Aside from the travel, it'd be like playing a primetime game. The issue would come for the West Coast teams, who are 8 hours apart.

If they did expand to Europe, they'd have to either include it with EST teams, or create a new division and possibly add additional teams in Europe. There are advantages in expanding there. European countries are some of the wealthiest countries on earth, and their populations are dense and are mostly urban (majority of Europeans live in cities of 10,000+). It'd take decades to establish enough European enthusiasm to expand to multiple countries, but those countries and major cities could sustain a franchise just as well, if not better, than American states.

bigbluedefense
10-23-2009, 07:55 PM
Im all for Toronto getting a team. I think its long overdue.

Either move the Bills to Toronto, or move the Jaguars there.


Toronto deserves an NFL team more than LA does imo.

DoughBoy
10-23-2009, 07:57 PM
I would have no problem with Mexico or Canada getting a team.

yodabear
10-23-2009, 08:00 PM
It would be moronic, and unfair for the teams that have to play in London, and for the London team to travel that much. Unless they something redunkulous like give London a road game the first 8 weeks, then a bye in week 9, and then a home game the last 8 weeks.

vikes_28
10-23-2009, 08:19 PM
I think the NFL is good with 32 franchises. 36 franchises would be way too many.

CashmoneyDrew
10-23-2009, 08:23 PM
I think the NFL is good with 32 franchises. 36 franchises would be way too many.

Yup. Stretching it to 36 would really thin out the talent level on each team. I think 34 teams is all the NFL can handle right now talent wise. And even that is probably stretching it.

the decider13
10-23-2009, 08:26 PM
It would be moronic, and unfair for the teams that have to play in London, and for the London team to travel that much. Unless they something redunkulous like give London a road game the first 8 weeks, then a bye in week 9, and then a home game the last 8 weeks.

That actually makes some sense, but the traveling is still crazy. I can't imagine it would ever work if the team from London played at home every other week then had to fly to America.

The other sports might be global, but none of them have a team overseas that participates in the regular league. It's just a crazy idea.

Monomach
10-23-2009, 08:27 PM
The idea of putting a franchise in London is stupid. The travel/time change would be a nightmare. Imagine how much this would suck for the teams in London's division.

The Nigerian game is stupid, too. There is no money for it there. The per capita income is about 5% of that of an industrialized nation. You couldn't sell seats unless they were like a buck each.

If you want to expand the NFL to other countries, make everyone play one game in England and put franchises in Toronto/Mexico City.

Brothgar
10-23-2009, 08:36 PM
The idea of putting a franchise in London is stupid. The travel/time change would be a nightmare. Imagine how much this would suck for the teams in London's division.

The Nigerian game is stupid, too. There is no money for it there. The per capita income is about 5% of that of an industrialized nation. You couldn't sell seats unless they were like a buck each.

If you want to expand the NFL to other countries, make everyone play one game in England and put franchises in Toronto/Mexico City.

There was talk about taking out two weeks of pre season and adding a bye week and a London week. I think he was going to flank the London week with the Bye weeks. But back to the OT. There is only one way a London team would work. The EFC and the USFC a euro conference and a Euro conference both conferences meet in the World Bowl or something.

Monomach
10-23-2009, 08:36 PM
Also what FA would want to sign a contract overseas if they could play in the states? It would be unfair to the team, because even thier own players would likely leave the first chance they got.

If I were a player, I'd love to live in London, but yeah...8 away games in the other hemisphere would keep me from signing.

The team would have to drastically overpay for stars, and would be mostly 2nd string guys dying for a chance to start.

Scotty D
10-23-2009, 09:32 PM
I'd have it so they play 8 games in the states and then 8 games in London. So your not flying back and forth between countries. Maybe you can somehow add perks for a player to play for a foreign team. I'm not exactly sure yet but they could make it more enticing to play other there.

SuperKevin
10-23-2009, 09:39 PM
I love what baketball has with FIBA. I would love to see an international governing body of football comprised of several seperate leagues

Scotty D
10-23-2009, 09:44 PM
I love what baketball has with FIBA. I would love to see an international governing body of football comprised of several seperate leagues

Can you imagine if foreigners start to play football at any early age, thats a new talent pool to draft from.

SuperKevin
10-23-2009, 09:46 PM
Can you imagine if foreigners start to play football at any early age, thats a new talent pool to draft from.

Agreed. In my opinion expanding the borders of the game has done nothing but good things for basketball. Who's to say it couldn't do the same for football?

brat316
10-23-2009, 10:42 PM
Jaguars to Toronto

vikes_28
10-23-2009, 10:51 PM
Agreed. In my opinion expanding the borders of the game has done nothing but good things for basketball. Who's to say it couldn't do the same for football?

But do you see an NBA team in Europe? Canada, Mexico, Peurto Rico - YES. I'd be all for that. Anywhere in Europe - NO.

ElectricEye
10-25-2009, 12:25 AM
But do you see an NBA team in Europe? Canada, Mexico, Peurto Rico - YES. I'd be all for that. Anywhere in Europe - NO.

But you will. Sometime in the near future, it's going to happen.


Toronto needs an NFL team. They would support it. I know the NFL is already strong over in Canada and you wouldn't be gaining new fans or overall interest, but it would be a good step.

Overall, I'm in the SuperKevin league of thought. Globalization has done amazing things for basketball and would do the same for football.

Matthew Jones
10-25-2009, 01:00 PM
I just think this doesn't make sense because of the travel schedules. It would be a pain to fly out to London and back to the United States every week. I think it's much better suited to play a game in every year or so. I'd love a game in Africa, by the way.

Gay Ork Wang
10-25-2009, 01:57 PM
i think they could somehow work it that every team after playing the london team in london gets a bye and the last 8 weeks they play in america

Shiver
10-25-2009, 02:07 PM
The London Shaguars.

http://cdn.faniq.com/images/blog/3b3f176bd303ba3b6b07cc3f7780ca76.jpg

Smooth Criminal
10-25-2009, 03:52 PM
Id much rather see Toronto and Mexico City before London. London would be awful for traveling. West coast teams already ***** about going to the east coast. I can just imagine what it would be like to San Diego to go to London.

Shiver
10-25-2009, 03:55 PM
Id much rather see Toronto and Mexico City before London. London would be awful for traveling. West coast teams already ***** about going to the east coast. I can just imagine what it would be like to San Diego to go to London.


They didn't do too bad when they did, at least offensively.

Vox Populi
10-25-2009, 04:56 PM
No team will move to Toronto other than the Bills in the near future. The Bills by playing games there have already forced that and I doubt any other team would be as good in Toronto because a massive amount of people in Southern Ontario are Bills fans, both franchises (the Bills and whoever moved to Toronto) would end up with smaller fan bases. The two moves that make the most sense are Bills to Toronto and Jaguars to Los Angeles.

Bills in Toronto would just make the league so much more money. I'm not going to argue that the NFL fan experience playing in Toronto would be better, it wouldn't, it would be garbage because the seats would be filled with suits and a bunch of the corporate seats would be left empty because of uninterested employees, just like you see with the other Toronto franchises. Plus tailgating is illegal in Ontario, they would have to change laws for that. The reason why it would be a good move is because it would make so much more money than a team based out of Buffalo. The team would go from one of the league's smallest market to probably the second largest one outside of New York until there is a team in L.A.

The point is, no matter how terrible the team is, no matter how empty the stadium is, a team in Toronto will always make more money than one in Buffalo just because of the market it is in. Since the CAD isn't **** right now either and is within +/- 10 cents of he USD for a decent part of the past decade basically, the team would make a lot of money for the league.

So, as far as the league is concerned, a Toronto franchise would make a tonne of sense, but only if it were the Bills. As a Bills fan, who lives just outside of Toronto, I say keep the Bills in Buffalo unless they want to allow tailgating before games in Toronto, for football games at least. If it happened I think a Toronto based team would be best served building a Stadium outside of the city though, preferably towards the South-East because i) the Sky Dome/Rogers Center is balls, and ii) I want to tail gate and you need a stadium that has a parking lot to do that ;)

KCJ58
10-25-2009, 05:25 PM
If the Jags moved to LA they would then became my 2nd favorite team

LizardState
10-25-2009, 06:53 PM
SI said that all the teams with stadium deals about to expire or in stadiums that suck are candidates to move, Minnesota, SF 49ers, J-Ville, the Raiders, & Buffalo among them.

They think Buffalo will move 1st (but to Toronto, not LA) as soon as they can get out of town, or as soon as the biggest obstacle, their owner who's 91, passes away. Goddell has made this his pet project as noted earlier.

Minnesota owner Zygi Wolf wants out in a major way, he inherited financial problems when he bought the team from Red McCombs for a lot more than it was worth .... maybe the mega-settlements with the family of Corey Stringer were a factor here. He wants to move, but LA isn't likely before he has to reupp with his Minnesota Dome deal.

The 9ers are the least likely b/c their new stadium deal for Santa Clara will happen in the next yr. or so if it does at all. It's not a done deal though, a 3-sport mega-complex on the same site was defeated by a 3-1 margin by Santa Clara Co. voters in '96.

For LA relo that leaves the Raiders (who've been there, done that) & Jags, & the Jags most likely to make the LA move. The Raiders are so cash-strapped that Al Davis will have to take on other minority partner(s) in the near future to stay solvent.

senormysterioso
10-25-2009, 07:14 PM
I will only get behind a franchise in London if they're called the Silly Nannies.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/51/FGPatriotGames1.jpg/250px-FGPatriotGames1.jpg

Brothgar
10-25-2009, 07:29 PM
What I want to know is how does the league expect to generate interest in football when they put a god awful game like Pats vs god awful Bucs as the one London game of the year.

falloutboy14
10-25-2009, 08:00 PM
What I want to know is how does the league expect to generate interest in football when they put a god awful game like Pats vs god awful Bucs as the one London game of the year.

I heard somewhere that the Bucs are one of the more popular teams in the UK. The Glazers (Bucs owner) also own Manchester United, or something.

Peter King said earlier today that the NFL is going to attempt to have one team to play in London for the next few years, to see if a single team can create a fan-base, as opposed to just a conglomeration of fans from random teams. Sort of like what the Bills did with Toronto.

senormysterioso
10-25-2009, 08:12 PM
I heard somewhere that the Bucs are one of the more popular teams in the UK. The Glazers (Bucs owner) also own Manchester United, or something.

Peter King said earlier today that the NFL is going to attempt to have one team to play in London for the next few years, to see if a single team can create a fan-base, as opposed to just a conglomeration of fans from random teams. Sort of like what the Bills did with Toronto.

Glazer owns Man U and George Gillette (who owns Gillette stadium) is a co-owner along with Tom Hicks for Liverpool. It probably wasn't a coincidence that the Bucs and Pats played

boknows34
10-25-2009, 11:19 PM
They didn't do too bad when they did, at least offensively.

San Diego were helped by the schedule makers last year in that their game the week before London was in Buffalo.

PS I was at Wembley today and have also been the other two years too. I am also vehemently against a London franchise for many reasons. A logistical nightmare for one with jetlag. I think any London team would also struggle to attract free agents and 50% income taxation in UK for high income earners stings too.

Fans would not afford to go to 8 home games per year as most of the fans there today have travelled from far and have had to add travel and hotel costs to the already very high ticket costs. You can do that once per year but not 8 times per year EVERY year. We also have our own teams and the vast majority of us would not give up our support so London would only be our #2 team. What happens too if its an expansion team and they suck for the first 5 years? Who is going to take the $1billion gamble in buying the team too. The franchise would sink fast.

Miaoww
10-29-2009, 05:48 PM
Not unless they break the Concorde out of retirement.