PDA

View Full Version : Jags to LA, & Bucs to London?


J-Mike88
08-26-2011, 02:02 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/26/some-think-bucs-should-move-to-l/

Itís no coincidence that the Bucs are playing two home games in London in three seasons. If the Bucs build a fan base abroad ó and if the attendance issues in Tampa donít improve soon ó the Bucs could be bound for not just a new city, but a new continent.

We know, we know. Plenty of you think itís inconceivable for a team to be headquartered in London. During their recent visit to Charlie Roseís show, both Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and Panthers owner Jerry Richardson acknowledged that London remains a very viable market for the league.
Do you think either or both of these moves will happen?
Is Florida only big enough to support one team, the Dolphins?

Brodeur
08-26-2011, 02:06 PM
That would be some horrid traveling for the Bucs.

killxswitch
08-26-2011, 02:07 PM
I know I will be in the tiny minority on this one but I think it would be interesting to have an NFL team in the UK and other continents. Expansion like that would eventually lead to longer football seasons and a wider talent pool to draw from. Maybe.

However I would hate to see the Bucs or any other team move out of the country completely. The Bills moving to Toronto is one thing but losing your favorite team to a city 3000 miles of ocean away would be devastating.

scottyboy
08-26-2011, 02:08 PM
having a team permanently in London would just be stupid and a traveling nightmare.

bearsfan_51
08-26-2011, 02:11 PM
I think it would be really interesting. If you don't find it interesting you should expand your horizons.

But I don't think it's feasible. Even futbol doesn't travel consistently like that.

soybean
08-26-2011, 02:13 PM
Not to mention, imagine how many draftees would pull eli mannings if they were drafted by the London wankers.

keylime_5
08-26-2011, 02:23 PM
newsflash, they don't give a **** about american football in Britain.

J-Mike88
08-26-2011, 02:30 PM
I think it would be really interesting. If you don't find it interesting you should expand your horizons.

But I don't think it's feasible. Even futbol doesn't travel consistently like that.

I wonder how long a flight from London to the East coast takes, versus San Diego or Seattle traveling to Miami or Buffalo.

Also, do you think it'd be possible that they would schedule them (if moved to London), where they'd have like 4 road games, 4 home games, 4 road games again, and 4 home games?

Make it so they'd only need 2 trips across the pond. And remember, their home games would be advantages as their opponents would have the effects of jet lag.

The NFL wants this type of expansion, and you can bet your $ that they'd make it as fair (or favorable) as possible to the team that moves.

Would they go as far as giving them more home games the first year?

A Perfect Score
08-26-2011, 02:33 PM
I think it would be really interesting. If you don't find it interesting you should expand your horizons.

But I don't think it's feasible. Even futbol doesn't travel consistently like that.

Interesting is probably the best word to describe it. If I were an owner, I'd certainly love to see it happen, but I'd hate for it to be my team.

Shane P. Hallam
08-26-2011, 02:38 PM
At least they would be in the Commonwealth for Caddy!

Shane P. Hallam
08-26-2011, 02:38 PM
Interesting is probably the best word to describe it. If I were an owner, I'd certainly love to see it happen, but I'd hate for it to be my team.

And hate to have a game away in Europe :/

V.I.P
08-26-2011, 02:42 PM
Both teams will stay put.

scottyboy
08-26-2011, 02:46 PM
I think it would be really interesting. If you don't find it interesting you should expand your horizons.

But I don't think it's feasible. Even futbol doesn't travel consistently like that.

it's very interesting and would be fun to see...but not until we invent teleportation really. travel would be a *****

dolphinfan2k5
08-26-2011, 03:01 PM
They just need to get those super fast planes going again. Then it will only take like 3 hours to get there.

RaiderNation
08-26-2011, 03:16 PM
I can see the Jags going to LA, but I really doubt any team will go to London. If a team goes outside the USA boundries it would be to Canada(Bills)

Bengalsrocket
08-26-2011, 03:28 PM
Not to mention, imagine how many draftees would pull eli mannings if they were drafted by the London wankers.

This would be my biggest concern. I can't imaging every player drafted from the U.S. wants to live in London for 9 months (or however long training camp + regular season is) of every year. Even if they don't out right refuse after being drafted, it would be a nightmare for them to re-sign most of talent they do develop.

nepg
08-26-2011, 03:36 PM
Interesting is probably the best word to describe it. If I were an owner, I'd certainly love to see it happen, but I'd hate for it to be my team.
The Bucs are the one team that has owners that have a vested interest in England, though... What with owning Man U. and all...

It'd be an interesting move that could spark NFL expansion and increase interest in American Football in Europe.

I do hate the idea of losing the Bucs from Tampa... I thought that was a solid fanbase. But the turnout for NFL games if London had their own team would be insane. They could easily pack 6 figures for all 8 games.

I think both moves are smart and would make the NFL gobs more cash. Also, move the Bills to Toronto.

I think you send the Bucs to England, Bills to Toronto, Jags to LA, and eventually give Tampa/Orlando, Germany, Montreal, and one other city (???) expansion teams. Reason being, you can't expect to build a lot of interest very quickly if you stick an expansion team in a foreign country (see: Grizzlies, Vancouver).

neko4
08-26-2011, 03:54 PM
I imagine if a team were in London they would probably play their games in some sort of block schedule. 4 Games @ home. 4 away, etc. And would probably have a "home-away-from-home" back in the US.

jrdrylie
08-26-2011, 03:58 PM
There will be a team in LA. And there will be a team in London. The NFL really really wants one there. But the Jaguars are not moving to LA. Wayne Weaver is not going to move the team. And it will be a while before he sells the team. The NFL is not going to wait that long for a team in LA. Within three years, some team will relocate to LA or San Diego will go a few miles north to the new stadium in LA.

PFT has been saying for years that the Jaguars are on the move. They continue to be wrong because they don't care about checking the facts and listening to what the owner says.

jth1331
08-26-2011, 04:09 PM
I just don't see London working out. You say well the team could just do a 4 home, 4 way, 4 home, 4 away, but what about the teams GOING to London to play them?
Not to mention the standard time of games doesn't work with London time, ie Monday Night, Sunday Night, Thursday Night, Saturday night games.

CashmoneyDrew
08-26-2011, 04:26 PM
If I was drafted by the London Blokes I'd definitely put extra pad locks on my TV room.

Brent
08-26-2011, 04:27 PM
if london plays it's home games at 7pm, that's noon MT/2pm ET. that seems to fit perfectly.
time zones and math? what do you think this is Beakman's World?

Brodeur
08-26-2011, 04:32 PM
I would be all for the move if Aqib Talib started saying "Bollocks" every time he came on camera.

Matthew Jones
08-26-2011, 04:39 PM
I really hope we don't move a team from the NATIONAL Football League to London.

CashmoneyDrew
08-26-2011, 04:51 PM
Will they dump a container of tea over Raheem Morris' head when they win the Super Bowl?

Forenci
08-26-2011, 04:56 PM
I think a team in London would be really cool. I don't know how feasible it would be, but clearly if any sport could do it, it'd be the NFL. A week between games seems like it would afford the best chance to deal with any travel issues.

I imagine if they set up the schedule well it could prevent too many travel issues.

Caulibflower
08-26-2011, 05:21 PM
That would be some horrid traveling for the Bucs.

Flight time from London to New York is about three hours longer than Seattle to New York. Which isn't crippling, but of course that's about the closest one. They'd definitely have to play mostly east-coast teams, and I'd wonder if they'd try to work something out where London got a couple extra home games to compensate for having to travel so far.

Caulibflower
08-26-2011, 05:21 PM
I really hope we don't move a team from the NATIONAL Football League to London.

You'd rather the AMERICAN league?

yodabear
08-26-2011, 05:36 PM
A team in London=

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/54/facepalming.gif

Cudders
08-26-2011, 06:17 PM
Scheduling wouldn't be an impossible obstruction to hurdle.

First off, as already stated, I'm sure the NFL would schedule the Buccaneers games in blocks. Something like four home and then four away to reduce the amount of in-season trips. Also, the scheduling procedures could be re-aligned to tie overseas travel and a team's bye week together. For example, whichever team the Buccaneers are hosting could have their bye the following or preceding week. They could also tweak little things to lighten the travel burden, like scheduling Team A for an early East Coast game the week before Team A flies across the pond to play the Bucs.

That said, I would like to know from the perspective of a fan in the United Kingdom: 1.) Is there obvious growth potential for the NFL in London beyond a yearly novelty, and 2.) Why the attraction to the Buccaneers? Is it in large part due to its ties to the Glazer family? And, more to the point, would fans of rival clubs (Manchester City or Liverpool, for instance) embrace a franchise who shares ownership with a club they passionately detest? I'm admittedly woefully ignorant on the sports culture over there, but I am curious nonetheless.

unrelated to your comment, but i find the american-centrism really, really hilarious. they'd have problems re-signing players? because london is such a **** hole compared to TAMPA BAY? y'all apparently need to get out more. or at least once. at least half the league is in a worse city than london, and that's accounting for any of the travel differences.

While I personally wholeheartedly agree with you as it pertains to American-centrism (I mean, after all, London is widely regarded as one of the most livable cities in the world), I do think the player acquisitions concerns for an international team have some merit. Unfortunately, not every player is going to be cultured enough to embrace Europe or be open-minded about going overseas, putting them at a slight competitive disadvantage. I don't think the percentage of displeased players would be astronomical or even noticeably significant, but I think we could see a fraction of the talent pool rebel at the idea of playing for a European team.

niel89
08-26-2011, 06:30 PM
It sounds interesting but its just too much of a hassle with travel for the players to really want to do it. I also just don't see the players wanting to play for a team that is that far away.

FuzzyGopher
08-26-2011, 07:34 PM
That would be pretty BA. They could serve figgy pudding and fried quail fingers at the concession stands.

TheRubberDuck45
08-26-2011, 07:34 PM
The Bucs, who finished what 10-6? Blacked out what, all of their games last year?
The Jags, who finished a mediocre, 8-8 or 7-9, blacked out none of their games.
Who loves their team more?

CashmoneyDrew
08-26-2011, 08:41 PM
The Bucs, who finished what 10-6? Blacked out what, all of their games last year?
The Jags, who finished a mediocre, 8-8 or 7-9, blacked out none of their games.
Who loves their team more?

Didn't Jax really just tarp a good portion of their seats so they could get to "sellouts" easier?

Bengalsrocket
08-26-2011, 09:56 PM
unrelated to your comment, but i find the american-centrism really, really hilarious. they'd have problems re-signing players? because london is such a **** hole compared to TAMPA BAY? y'all apparently need to get out more. or at least once. at least half the league is in a worse city than london, and that's accounting for any of the travel differences.

Well you're just making an assumption now. I never said that London was a terrible place to live. The bottom line is that it's a lot harder to visit family / have family visit you when you live across an ocean. It's also harder to find the foods, entertainment and other American comforts you grew up with and love when you're in a different country.

It's a lot of little things, but it adds up.

Edit: You don't think the same would be true if the roles were reversed? Or stretch across any other two countries? I know the NHL has Canadian teams, but a lot of Hockey players aren't even from America in the first place. Also, Canada doesn't have a giant ocean between our country.

Caddy
08-27-2011, 12:41 AM
At least they would be in the Commonwealth for Caddy!

Haha. I honestly could care less if the Buccaneers moved city or country. Actually, I'm a Brit citizen, so I hope they move there!

Disclaimer - this is a load of garbage. I'd be shocked if the Bucs playing in England didn't have something to do with the fact the Glazer's own Man Utd.

yodabear
08-27-2011, 01:58 AM
London is a great city in a great country and a great continent. Minus the riots and stuff they are having there. However, it would just be way too hard to have 31 teams here and 1 team way over there. I mean there is a reason why the teams have to have the bye week after they play there. That would be hard. Plus, it would hurt the Bucs so much. I don't think they'd neccesarily have the problems people are speaking of getting draft picks and all. But the Vikings have been moving to LA every year since the Rams left (Don't we all love Georgia?), the Jags have been moving a lot. All these rumors and seems like nothing ever happens. And I'd be shocked if something like this happens. Altho, I think we in Minnesota may have to worry (I'm going to their game tomorrow!) cuz of the stadium thing. The Gophers and Twins just had to pull teeth to get a new stadium, and I don't see it happening anytime soon and LA did get that whole Staples thing signed.

UKfan
08-27-2011, 04:04 AM
Loving all of the stereotypes in this thread :)

boknows34
08-27-2011, 06:28 PM
NFL fans here in Britain are not going to abandon their teams to support a transplanted Bucs franchise. I live within 20 mins of Wembley Stadium and have been to 3 of the 4 International Series games and we are still a long, long, long way away from making a London franchise a viable and realistic possibility. One of the biggest hurdles would actually be taxation. Usain Bolt refuses to compete here because our tax authorities want to tax him on a % of his worldwide endorsements.

If anyone wants a UK perspective they can read this thread from nfluk:

http://forum.nfluk.com/showthread.php?t=73752

Here are the points I made on Pg 4 of that thread: Some of them relate to a potential expansion team rather than relocation.

1. Who is going to pay the $1 billion plus to buy a new franchise? Nobody in Britain for sure and I'm certain the NFL would want British ownership. Its a massive gamble for any investor to buy an NFL team abroad.

2. It would be a logistical nightmare for the players. Its not just the regular season with many trips back and forth across the Atlantic but what happens in the playoffs when teams don't have the benefit of a bye week? The 49ers could travel 8 time zones to London for a wild card game, and if they win, have to travel 8 time zones back again for a potential game against a rested Seattle team.

3. Would American players want to commit themselves to a foreign team in a domestic league thousands of miles away from friends and family. What about work permits and the 50% taxation laws for high earners? Usain Bolt refused to run in the UK this summer because of our tax laws. If a free agent had multiple offers from NFL teams I can't see how he would choose to sign for London unless they vastly overpaid for him. That in turn would have a detrimental effect on the UK team's salary cap.

4. A UK franchise would never have a lucrative home game on SNF or MNF due to the time difference. All home games would have to be Sunday at 6pm for the TV markets and to allow the American teams the time they need to adjust for jetlag.

5. Are existing hardcore fans going to abandon their teams for a London team? I doubt it. If its an expansion franchise they will struggle for the first 4-5 seasons at least with 4-12 and 3-13 records. Would fans want to watch that 8 times per season instead of staying at home and watching their own team on TV or Gamepass? If its a transplanted team like the Jaguars then UK fans are even less likely to adopt them. Fans are fickle. The World League's London Monarchs got great crowds in their successful first season in 1991 but they fell sharply when the team started losing.

6. Its very expensive for the majority of fans travelling to the Int Series. Most of the fans at these annual IS games are also coming from all over the country and indeed Europe with many Germans and Scandinavian fans too. Add up the cost of tickets, travel, food, hotels and its a very pricy weekend. Would fans do that for 8 home games per season, every season? I doubt it. Add on a potential playoff game and you would need to remortgage the house to afford a season ticket. Its OK maybe once or twice a year to make a trip to London but the majority of NFL fans in Britain would not be able to afford 8 trips a season, every season.

7. Its just not the players with travel and logistics problems to overcome. The NFL never allow games to clash with the NCAA so a London team would still have to play all their home games on a Sunday at 6pm. That gives even more problems for travelling fans as they might not be able to get back home in time for work on Monday. Remember what our transport system is like with the majority of railway engineering work done on Sundays too. Many fans would likely have to book the Monday off work if travelling from across the country. They might start off with good intentions and have a friendly, understanding boss but eventually it gets too difficult and not worth the hassle when you can watch on TV/Gamepass instead. NFL games would not finish until 9pm with all the fans having to make their own way back on public transport. Could they get away in time to catch the last bus or last train home on a Sunday schedule? The IS games are always selected on the one week of the season where games kickoff at 5pm and its done for a good reason - as it allows fans that extra hour in getting home.

8. The sceptical and ignorant red-top gutter press would feel its a threat to mainstream British sports and want it to fail.

9. The vast majority of NFL fans in the USA hate the idea of a foreign team too. It would be deeply unpopular across the pond.

10. The NFL is perfect as it is with 32 teams in 8 divisions of 4. The schedule works perfectly too with its current rotation. Adding an expansion team would probably mean increasing the NFL to 36 teams. Is there enough talent to add over 200 more players to the league and thus diluting the talent pool even further. Quality >>> Quantity.

descendency
08-27-2011, 06:51 PM
newsflash, they don't give a **** about american football in Britain.

I don't know if you can say the NFL has ever given them a fair chance to care...

I mean how many junior college games do you watch?

We stuck a bunch of second rate hacks over there and pretended it was professional football. They do turn out for London games though.

boknows34
08-27-2011, 07:41 PM
I don't know if you can say the NFL has ever given them a fair chance to care...

I mean how many junior college games do you watch?

We stuck a bunch of second rate hacks over there and pretended it was professional football. They do turn out for London games though.

That's exactly why the World League didn't work out in the UK. British fans will watch the NFL but the WLAF was UFL standard and many here found it hard with the turnover of players. If anyone was any good (eg Kurt Warner, Brad Johnson, Jon Kitna) they'd soon leave for the NFL. Soccer fans in America will turn up to watch Man Utd, Chelsea and Barcelona and not some English 2nd division team like Chesterfield. Its all about the quality of the product and that's especially true when trying to introduce a new sport to a country.

bucfan12
08-27-2011, 11:50 PM
It would be impossible to have a team in London over the span of a 16 game season. That would be ridiculous when it comes to jet lag and traveling etc.

None of the Florida teams are moving to L.A. If anyone moves there, it's most likely to be San Diego or Minnesota, who is looking for a new stadium.

WMD
08-28-2011, 12:18 AM
Much like the sun or a balloon, the NFL will expand until it EXPLODES! There will be jerseys and helmets all over the place. It will be messy.

Bengalsrocket
08-28-2011, 01:20 AM
neither of the things you said are remotely true. i recommend leaving the country before talking about what it's like.


You're right, I've never personally been to London. But I have been to Europe before and I know that sometimes it was harder to purchase foods that I liked there. Now in my specific case I was only there for a week, which means I didn't have time to find specific market places that would sell more American food (and presumably if you're an NFL player that lived there for several months a year, you would have time to find that kind of stuff - or have it shipped to you via family members or an online store).

I'm not trying to be a dense moron here that is going to stand his ground no matter what. So, if you don't think it's even a bit of an inconvenience to live across an ocean in a land where people have some different customs then I'll concede the point. It's not that big of a deal to me either way.

Caddy
08-28-2011, 02:11 AM
What food couldn't you find?

Saints-Tigers
08-28-2011, 03:10 AM
I don't want this to happen, but how bad could jet lag really be when you have a week between games?

Caddy
08-28-2011, 03:59 AM
Not a fan of spotted dick or black pudding?

fenikz
08-28-2011, 04:15 AM
NFC West
Arizona Cardinals
Denver Broncos
Los Angeles Jaguars
Oakland Raiders
San Fransisco 49ers
San Diego Chargers
Seattle Seahawks
St. Louis Rams

NFC East
Chicago Bears
Dallas Cowboys
Detroit Lions
Green Bay Packers
Minnesota Vikings
New York Giants
Philadelphia Eagles
Washington Redskins

AFC South
Atlanta Falcons
Carolina Panthers
Houston Texans
Indianapolis Colts
Kansas City Chiefs
Miami Dolphins
New Orleans Saints
Tennessee Titans

AFC North
Baltimore Ravens
Cincinnati Bengals
Cleveland Browns
London Bucs
New England Patriots
New York Jets
Pittsburgh Steelers
Toronto Bills

J-Mike88
08-28-2011, 06:27 AM
Looks good fenikz.
That would make for 14 divisional games, and 2 (or 4) non-divisional games.

wordofi
08-28-2011, 09:04 AM
They're not moving an NFL team to London.

J-Mike88
09-02-2011, 12:29 PM
They're not moving an NFL team to London.
Tampa Bay SHOULD move!
This team is coming off of a great season with young rising stars.
And their opener still has 50,000 seats left???? PATHETIC.

I know some team with way over 50,000 on a season ticket waiting list.

I guess the Tampa area folks are too pumped up about their baseball team the Rays right now, or excited about their Lightning NHL team coming up in a few months.....

http://t.co/JO2oIak

Bucs_Rule
09-02-2011, 08:09 PM
It will be difficult to attract free agents and re-sign those with families. If a team in London plays two, 4 game blocks in the US. That's 2 months away from families if the family lives in London. Not to mention if the team decides to do camp in US, preseason games would be a hassle if they stayed in London.

Family lives in US that's even more time the player would be away.

ElectricEye
09-02-2011, 08:26 PM
I'm with the interesting crowd. They've been toying around with this idea for awhile now. It's a logistical problem for sure...but not something you couldn't get over if you were completely committed to it. The NFL would just have to make sure there's a viable market for their product over there beforehand. There's not a real good way to be sure of that though and the NFL would have to make sure they knew the risk they were taking.

SchizophrenicBatman
09-02-2011, 10:05 PM
I think putting a team in England would be interesting. No way to say how it would work out. With a whole nation (played right you could even get most of western europe) backing them it'd work out even if it's a niche sport abroad. But if it doesn't work, it will be a disaster. BIG TIME disaster

I'd be mildly surprised if the Glazer's didn't push for the team to be in Manchester if it's the Bucs. There's no chance the NFL goes anywhere other than London, of course

NY+Giants=NYG
09-02-2011, 10:15 PM
I think it would be really interesting. If you don't find it interesting you should expand your horizons.

But I don't think it's feasible. Even futbol doesn't travel consistently like that.

I don't mind that. Football is played a lot all of Europe, however, it obviously is not the popular sport. But there are teams and people who play it. Plus the Bucs owner owns Manchester United right so I am sure he can market it during Man U games.

wordofi
09-03-2011, 01:46 AM
I guarantee that no team is moving to London.

J-Mike88
09-08-2011, 09:03 AM
I guarantee that no team is moving to London.
"Guarantee?"
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj217/Strawberry_Central/irobotfunny.gif

jrdrylie
09-08-2011, 10:19 AM
I guarantee that no team is moving to London.

Actually, I would guarantee that a team WILL move to London. They have been talking about it for three or four years. Godell actually wants one there more than he wants one in LA.

Rosebud
09-08-2011, 10:45 AM
Honestly I just don't see it. NFLe did best in germany and none of the germans I met actually enjoyed the games and would want to attend. I just can't see europe supporting an NFL team given the current popularity of the game there. I mean Football and Basketball are much more popular and each country has some of their own sports that they're also into, England's rugby and cricket, russians and scandinavians have hockey, etc.

jrdrylie
09-08-2011, 10:54 AM
Honestly I just don't see it. NFLe did best in germany and none of the germans I met actually enjoyed the games and would want to attend. I just can't see europe supporting an NFL team given the current popularity of the game there. I mean Football and Basketball are much more popular and each country has some of their own sports that they're also into, England's rugby and cricket, russians and scandinavians have hockey, etc.

NFL Europe failed because it was a crappy watch. It was a bunch of practice squad players with a few exceptions. Of course no one wants to watch it. If you actually put a good product on the field, people will watch it. And Germany, Russia, and the Scandinavians don't need to support the team, only London and the surrounding area.

Rosebud
09-08-2011, 11:37 AM
NFL Europe failed because it was a crappy watch. It was a bunch of practice squad players with a few exceptions. Of course no one wants to watch it. If you actually put a good product on the field, people will watch it. And Germany, Russia, and the Scandinavians don't need to support the team, only London and the surrounding area.

Nah, the problem was the constant interruptions to the game. A society that adores the endless flow of Soccer just isn't as big on the constant breaks in play of American Football. A bunch of my friends used be part of the half time show for the team in Berlin so they watched the sport enough to learn the rules and even when I'd show them NFL games they got bored with it really quick and we'd find something better to do.

bucfan12
09-08-2011, 11:48 AM
No team will ever re-locate to London. There is no way that they would physically be able to recover week in and week out having to travel 8 times a year to the United States with different time zones. It'd be torture and exhausting for a professional football team.

bucfan12
09-08-2011, 11:49 AM
There's a reason why both teams that go to London every year, get a bye the following week.

killxswitch
09-08-2011, 11:59 AM
If they ever did put a team in Europe the NFL would need to cut down on the commercial breaks. I don't think fans there would have the patience for it.

jrdrylie
09-08-2011, 12:58 PM
No team will ever re-locate to London. There is no way that they would physically be able to recover week in and week out having to travel 8 times a year to the United States with different time zones. It'd be torture and exhausting for a professional football team.

The travel would not be that bad. Flights from London to the states are about 8 hours. Just leave in the evening, maybe 5 or 6. The flight arrives in the states around 10 pm. The team gets to the hotel by 11 pm and they can sleep. Jet lag is not really a problem, especially with good travel planning and chartered flights.

ElectricEye
09-08-2011, 01:19 PM
The popularity of the game is obviously a concern. Possibly the biggest one even, as travel really isn't as big of a deal as some here are making it out to be. But we're talking about something completely unprecedented here. The game isn't big over there, but if you were to put a high level team in that spot it just might change things. I'm pretty sure if they dumped an Premier League soccer team in New York it would be a fairly big deal there and possibly be a success. Similar concept here. It's a fairly big risk to take and the NFL would have to have a really well thought out way about how they would go about doing it and marketing the game...as well as contingency plans in case it doesn't work out....but it's something that they seem to think is worth trying at some point down the line.

Roddoliver
09-08-2011, 03:58 PM
London. Sweeney Todd. Jack the Ripper. And now Aqib Talib. Perfect fit.

bucfan12
09-08-2011, 06:07 PM
The travel would not be that bad. Flights from London to the states are about 8 hours. Just leave in the evening, maybe 5 or 6. The flight arrives in the states around 10 pm. The team gets to the hotel by 11 pm and they can sleep. Jet lag is not really a problem, especially with good travel planning and chartered flights.

Hm, then why do the Bucs and Bears get a bye week after the trip? Yes, Jet -Lag would be a problem doing that 8 times a year. Also, it depends on what location you are traveling to in the United States. Sometimes a trip out west is difficult. Trip from London to the States would be terrible 8 times a year.

bucfan12
09-08-2011, 06:10 PM
If any team moves, it'll be a team to L.A. My guess is the Chargers move the L.A. within the next 3 years. Yes, Tampa may be going through a tough time with fans not purchasing season tickets, but that's based on the 15-16% unemployment rate in the city of Tampa. Not the lack of support in fan base. Read several other forums and you'll see fans that say they can attend a game or 2, but can't afford season tickets. It's not lack of support for the football team, it's lack of financial stability in the account of not being able to afford football games.

Bengalsrocket
09-08-2011, 07:10 PM
If any team moves, it'll be a team to L.A. My guess is the Chargers move the L.A. within the next 3 years. Yes, Tampa may be going through a tough time with fans not purchasing season tickets, but that's based on the 15-16% unemployment rate in the city of Tampa. Not the lack of support in fan base. Read several other forums and you'll see fans that say they can attend a game or 2, but can't afford season tickets. It's not lack of support for the football team, it's lack of financial stability in the account of not being able to afford football games.

That's still a massive problem...

I don't think any NFL team would have trouble filling every seat in their stadium if tickets were free.

bucfan12
09-08-2011, 07:25 PM
Exactly, and these so called "Expert Analysts" on ESPN say that fans don't support there team in Tampa. Look at alst year when the Tampa Bay Rays were atop of there division in baseball. They could barely get fans to come out to there games. Yes, and the Bucs were in playoff contention last year and the same thing happened.


It's financially they can't do it. It's not that there isn't fans out there. I think the NFL needs to lift the blackout. It's not peoples faults they cannot afford to attend games.

bearsfan_51
09-08-2011, 07:34 PM
Exactly, and these so called "Expert Analysts" on ESPN say that fans don't support there team in Tampa. Look at alst year when the Tampa Bay Rays were atop of there division in baseball. They could barely get fans to come out to there games. Yes, and the Bucs were in playoff contention last year and the same thing happened.


It's financially they can't do it. It's not that there isn't fans out there. I think the NFL needs to lift the blackout. It's not peoples faults they cannot afford to attend games.
Do you honestly think the NFL gives a **** about being fair to the fans? They want your money, and if you won't give them your money, they won't give you their product.

Pat Sims 90
09-08-2011, 07:34 PM
Exactly, and these so called "Expert Analysts" on ESPN say that fans don't support there team in Tampa. Look at alst year when the Tampa Bay Rays were atop of there division in baseball. They could barely get fans to come out to there games. Yes, and the Bucs were in playoff contention last year and the same thing happened.


It's financially they can't do it. It's not that there isn't fans out there. I think the NFL needs to lift the blackout. It's not peoples faults they cannot afford to attend games.

It is not the financially aspect of it. It is the fact that most Tampa Bay fans don't support their team unless they make the playoffs.

bucfan12
09-08-2011, 07:39 PM
It is not the financially aspect of it. It is the fact that most Tampa Bay fans don't support their team unless they make the playoffs.

The Rays made the playoffs last year. Where were there fans? If I had the money, trust me, I'd be at every single home game.

Pat Sims 90
09-08-2011, 07:46 PM
The Rays made the playoffs last year. Where were there fans? If I had the money, trust me, I'd be at every single home game.

There are just not that many TB Ray Fans. I live in Browns-Steelers country and i see Buc fans.

bucfan12
09-08-2011, 08:44 PM
There are just not that many TB Ray Fans. I live in Browns-Steelers country and i see Buc fans.

Yep, I live in PA, where there are either Steeler or Eagle fans majority. I know like 1 other Buc fan in my area though.

I'm just saying when I browse accross the forums that when Buc fans talk about the blackouts, they mention how it's tough for them to afford season tickets, but try making 1-2 games a year.

TheBoyWonder22
09-08-2011, 08:46 PM
There are just not that many TB Ray Fans. I live in Browns-Steelers country and i see Buc fans.
This.
Where I'm from it goes Browns, Steelers, Bengals, Pats, Bucs in terms of fandom. I'm one of only 3 Ravens fans probably in the state.

DeathbyStat
09-09-2011, 01:42 AM
That would be some horrid traveling for the Bucs.

yeah that terrible,,,,,hope it doesn't happen

Monomach
09-09-2011, 09:27 AM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/26/some-think-bucs-should-move-to-l/


Do you think either or both of these moves will happen?
Is Florida only big enough to support one team, the Dolphins?

Florida is big enough to handle multiple football teams...they just don't give a **** about any team but the Dolphins. It'd be like dropping another team in Chicago. Sure, we're big enough...but 99.999999999999% of the people who care about football in Chicago already claim to be Bears fans from birth.

The Bucs to London is hilarious. Aside from travel times, they HATE the Glazers over there. And I'm not talking about our kind of hate. I'm talking about soccer fan burning-cars-and-throwing-jars-of-urine hate.

Not sure why people are saying London would have a hard time getting players. England is ******* awesome, especially London. I'd be pretty stoked to live there. If you can get players to live in Detroit or Cleveland, you can get them to live in London.

jrdrylie
09-09-2011, 12:51 PM
FWIW, the blackout has been lifted for the Jacksonville game.

Watchman
09-09-2011, 02:24 PM
this has a clear effect on the net worth and attendance for that crappy soccer team he owns.


I believe many Man U fans hate the fact that the Glazers own the club. Doesn't mean they are going to abandon their club.

J-Mike88
09-09-2011, 06:45 PM
So the economy is tough in the Tampa area, but it's okay most everywhere else?
I don't buy that excuse.
Their fans are A) few-probably because high % of Tampa-ites are from other areas, B) cheap, not loyal.

We saw it last year even when they were very good, and we have seen it with the talented Rays baseball team too.

drowe
09-10-2011, 09:18 AM
I understand that from a business standpoint, it'd be the greatest win ever if football could expand it's popularity to Europe.

But, that doesn't mean it should happen RIGHT NOW.

Logistics-yes. it would be a scheduling and travelling nightmare to have to account for a team going to or coming from London every week. East coast teams playing on the west coast have a bad record..presumably because of timezone/jet lag.

Ignorance-Some fans will lose their minds over this. And some players too. Football is an american sport. Played by people that have had limited exposure to the rest of the world. I know i'm generalizing here, but tell me I'm wrong. I do foresee players taking issue with the fact that they were drafted or traded to a team in London. They now have to play halfway around the world from their friends and family. They've worked towards their pro careers their whole lives. And I'm pretty sure playing in Europe is not what they envisioned.

And these 2 points would be easier to overlook if there was reason to believe a team in London would be more successful than a team in Tampa or Jacksonville. But we've tried. We've had football leagues in Europe and they went over like a fart in church. Playing the one game per year as a gimmick worked...but just this past summer, Manchester United played exhibition games around the US against MLS teams and it was very successful...but that doesn't quite make the MLS popular.

My solution: Don't push it. Don't rush it. Maybe if ya know a team is going to move to LA in 2 years, let them play a year in London in the interim. Give them a team for a year on a trial basis. If that works, then ya know it's a possibility. If they have 1 open seat for 1 game, then, let's keep football on this side of the pond.

Ness
09-11-2011, 02:14 AM
Ignorance-Some fans will lose their minds over this. And some players too. Football is an american sport. Played by people that have had limited exposure to the rest of the world. I know i'm generalizing here, but tell me I'm wrong. I do foresee players taking issue with the fact that they were drafted or traded to a team in London. They now have to play halfway around the world from their friends and family. They've worked towards their pro careers their whole lives. And I'm pretty sure playing in Europe is not what they envisioned.

Well any player complaining in that scenario should be quiet. You're a millionaire now. Stop whining. Be fortunate you were picked by a team and aren't playing Arena football or just aren't playing period.

J-Mike88
10-22-2011, 04:05 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/10/22/roger.goodell.london.ap/index.html?sct=hp_t2_a7&eref=sihp

Quietly..... the NFL is getting the Londonites to welcome the Bucs......

crisco0710
10-22-2011, 10:52 PM
I think they should host a teams NFL training camp in London next season to see the turnout. If they have a good turn out, we could expect a good following for that team if they were to be put in London.

PackerLegend
10-22-2011, 11:55 PM
I dont like it... Dont want any teams moving to London on a full time basis it would be stupid.

Dallas357
10-24-2011, 09:16 AM
Didn't Jax really just tarp a good portion of their seats so they could get to "sellouts" easier?

the stadium still has over 67,000 seats. well above nfl average

Iamcanadian
10-24-2011, 05:07 PM
If LA builds a new stadium, teams will be lined up to move there, if they don't, you will have trouble convincing any team to move there.
As for Tampa Bay moving to London, it is not that far fetched. Their owner owns Manchester United and the team that moves there will have a revenue base that will make the rest of the NFL totally envious. He will have all of England as a fan base and be able to merchandise all for his team. Add the TV revenue for Britain and you can understand why the NFL wants to go there.
Tampa Bay IMO, is the logical team to move since their owner has strong business connections there.

jrdrylie
10-24-2011, 07:35 PM
the stadium still has over 67,000 seats. well above nfl average

The stadium is too big for the city. The percentage of citizens who have to buy tickets is sky high compared to most cities. Plus Jacksonville was hit extremely hard by the recession.

Dallas357
10-25-2011, 08:50 PM
The stadium is too big for the city. The percentage of citizens who have to buy tickets is sky high compared to most cities. Plus Jacksonville was hit extremely hard by the recession.

i know that, if the stadium was 62,000 like chicago we wouldn't ever hear anything about ticket sales. no games are being blacked out as it is though, if they start winning then tickets won't be an issue at all.

Giantsfan1080
10-25-2011, 09:02 PM
If LA builds a new stadium, teams will be lined up to move there, if they don't, you will have trouble convincing any team to move there.
As for Tampa Bay moving to London, it is not that far fetched. Their owner owns Manchester United and the team that moves there will have a revenue base that will make the rest of the NFL totally envious. He will have all of England as a fan base and be able to merchandise all for his team. Add the TV revenue for Britain and you can understand why the NFL wants to go there.
Tampa Bay IMO, is the logical team to move since their owner has strong business connections there.

Except for the fact that Man U fans hate Glazer and they protest all the time for him to sell. They would do nothing to support him.

brat316
10-25-2011, 09:05 PM
Why not Mexico and Toronto? Other than cartels and free health care.

regoob2
10-25-2011, 09:28 PM
Not sure if this has been mentioned but, what happens when the team who is playing in Europe gets told every draft that the player they want to draft refuses to sign with you since they dont want to play half there games in Europe?

tuan33
10-25-2011, 09:34 PM
Except for the fact that Man U fans hate Glazer and they protest all the time for him to sell. They would do nothing to support him.

The protesters died down when they won the league last year and their finances came into order. The red knights are a silent minority now compared to when it was crazy over there. Also if they didn't retire the Concordes, the trip from New York to London would be about 3.5 hours which wouldn't make travel lag too bad.

bearsfan_51
10-25-2011, 09:48 PM
Not sure if this has been mentioned but, what happens when the team who is playing in Europe gets told every draft that the player they want to draft refuses to sign with you since they dont want to play half there games in Europe?
It's been mentioned, but as others have said, it's probably wrong. If you can convince players to live in Nashville, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Jacksonville, I don't think it will be that hard to convince them to play in London.

Brodeur
10-25-2011, 10:16 PM
If they're willing to play for this shithole...

J-Mike88
10-25-2011, 10:25 PM
seriously. london's a nicer place to live than 95% of the cities nfl teams play in. i have no idea why this keeps getting mentioned, unless it's solely because people have never left home.
You got it.
I am amazed by how small a %age of Americans have actually been to any country outside of the USA (or Mexico/Canada).

The first team that moves to London would be enormous for all of the UK. A killer money-maker.

Bills2083
10-25-2011, 10:33 PM
You got it.
I am amazed by how small a %age of Americans have actually been to any country outside of the USA (or Mexico/Canada).

The first team that moves to London would be enormous for all of the UK. A killer money-maker.

Why is that?
Considering that for the most part, countries are much smaller in Europe, it's a lot easier to travel outside your native country.

Iamcanadian
10-26-2011, 04:35 AM
Except for the fact that Man U fans hate Glazer and they protest all the time for him to sell. They would do nothing to support him.

The team would be in London not Manchester and I think they just hate the idea of a foreigner owning their beloved ManU and I agree with them.

Caddy
10-26-2011, 04:39 AM
I would actually really like to see Tampa become the London Buccaneers!

Iamcanadian
10-26-2011, 04:43 AM
Not sure if this has been mentioned but, what happens when the team who is playing in Europe gets told every draft that the player they want to draft refuses to sign with you since they dont want to play half there games in Europe?

I got news for you, most of the NFL players would love to play for a London team, I'd say over half the teams in the NFL are far worse cities to play in than London and far less attractive for NFL players.

stephenson86
10-26-2011, 04:43 AM
No, I come from England and moving a team over here would be idiotic, the Bucs got booed by the home fans compared to the Bears getting cheered. We don't really give a **** over here in the sense that we just want to see some games, we DON'T want a franchise. Even my dad thinks it is idiotic and he doesn't follow the NFL really, but he understands that logistics behind moving a team over plenty of time zones 8 and eventually 9 times a year.

stephenson86
10-26-2011, 04:45 AM
The protesters died down when they won the league last year and their finances came into order. The red knights are a silent minority now compared to when it was crazy over there. Also if they didn't retire the Concordes, the trip from New York to London would be about 3.5 hours which wouldn't make travel lag too bad.

No we do hate Glazer, he came in, put the club in stupid amounts of debt and even though we LUCKILY won the league last year we are in a **** state and have holes all over the team. United are the worst they have been in years. Glazer is despised by United fans. He should just sell to the Qatar Royal Family and **** off.

stephenson86
10-26-2011, 04:55 AM
In addition, dya want to hear the biggest problem? The team WILL NOT get a following in it's city they will get a few fans but they won't fill the stadium on a regular basis, it costs a lot of money to make a trip to London, if you live up North and they won't have a fan base in London big enough to fill the stadium. The Bears were more the home team than the Bucs on Sunday as they were THE team when everyone loved football during the 80's.

Iamcanadian
10-26-2011, 04:56 AM
No, I come from England and moving a team over here would be idiotic, the Bucs got booed by the home fans compared to the Bears getting cheered. We don't really give a **** over here in the sense that we just want to see some games, we DON'T want a franchise. Even my dad thinks it is idiotic and he doesn't follow the NFL really, but he understands that logistics behind moving a team over plenty of time zones 8 and eventually 9 times a year.

There are just as many time zones when you play on the west coast and who is to say how Londoners would react to a real home team. 8 or 9 games aren't really a lot and I could see everyone of them sold out which is all that matters to the NFL.
I don't think it would take Londoners long to get on board a home side once they become the real home team. It's human nature when it is us against them.

stephenson86
10-26-2011, 05:04 AM
There are just as many time zones when you play on the west coast and who is to say how Londoners would react to a real home team. 8 or 9 games aren't really a lot and I could see everyone of them sold out which is all that matters to the NFL.
I don't think it would take Londoners long to get on board a home side once they become the real home team. It's human nature when it is us against them.

Trust me, there is much more important stuff going on in London for everyone to get behind an NFL team in a stadium that over charges you for food and drink, costs a hell of a lot to get to unless you live next door to a tube station, charges you massive amounts for tickets and didn't get filled when they were selling tickets to ALL UK NFL fans. It wouldn't be successful, I would go to one or two games a year but I can't afford to go more than that. London already has 14 football teams, 5 of them are in the premier league so there is a lot of people who have other teams to worry about. Even if Tennessee moved to London, I would only go to 2 games a season as it is far to expensive. Also we in England have a great way of ******* up a good opportunity in general so it would no doubt fail. Don't give us Brits anything good, we will **** it up...just wait for the Olympics next year.

jrdrylie
10-26-2011, 08:19 AM
It's been mentioned, but as others have said, it's probably wrong. If you can convince players to live in Nashville, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Jacksonville, I don't think it will be that hard to convince them to play in London.

My issue with playing in London would be that European cities are expensive. Even more expensive than New York. Would the NFL adjust the salary cap for that? I'm pretty sure taxes are higher there too. The London team would have to pay a free agent 15-20% (at a minimum) for it not to feel like a pay decrease.

Cleveland and Buffalo kind of suck, but Nashville and Jacksonville are nice towns. Both have a ton of good food places, plenty of attractive women, and decent night life. Neither state has a state income tax. Jacksonville is on the beach. If you want to get out for the weekend, Miami and Atlanta are only an hour and a half long flight away. There are a bunch of worse places to live than Jacksonville and Nashville.

Jughead10
10-26-2011, 08:28 AM
I think I heard maybe Florio on Sunday night say there would be some sort of US facility for any UK team anyway. Somewhere where they could realistically practice all week in the US if they had to fly out to CA for a game.

bearsfan_51
10-26-2011, 08:38 AM
The reason most states have no income tax is because they need to encourage people to actually live there.

Taxes are high in London, that's true. I'd certainly rather pay more taxes and live in some place that has history and culture, than make more money and be forced to live in a redneck backwater like Jacksonville. But I also have a reading comprehension beyond a teenager, so I probably don't speak for most pro athletes.

CashmoneyDrew
10-26-2011, 10:08 AM
It's been mentioned, but as others have said, it's probably wrong. If you can convince players to live in Nashville, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Jacksonville, I don't think it will be that hard to convince them to play in London.

???

I'm guessing you've never actually been here.

DoughBoy
10-26-2011, 10:13 AM
Nashville is the shiz. No homer.

bearsfan_51
10-26-2011, 10:13 AM
???

I'm guessing you've never actually been here.
Sure I have. I have family in Knoxville.

I'm sure Nashville is lovely if you like country music, but if you compare it to the major metro areas that have NFL teams, it's one of the smallest and culturally remote. It's nothing personal, but if you're asking me where I'd like to go on vacation, and my options are London or Nashville, I'd have to think for about 3 seconds.

Don Vito
10-26-2011, 10:18 AM
If I were going to live in any city in the south it would be Nashville, it's a really cool town with a lot of very nice neighborhoods around the city.

CashmoneyDrew
10-26-2011, 10:20 AM
This city has so much more going on than just country music. That's a stereotype that's just not true anymore.
And explain culturally remote for me. Because Nashville is probably the most diverse city in the south.
I'm not taking this personally or anything I'm just truly confused. It's definitely in the top half of the league in terms of cities I would love to live in even if I was unbiased.
Also, Knoxville is almost nothing like Nashville. Now that is a culturally remote city.

bearsfan_51
10-26-2011, 10:20 AM
Here's another way to look at it, because everyone in the United States thinks that their city is the best city for whatever reason. I lived in Spain for about two years, and I found that even though Europeans know a lot more about American culture than vice-versa, their understanding is still pretty shallow.

So, the best way to determine if your city is culturally and economically relevant beyond your own understanding, is to ask a European if they've ever heard of your city. If they haven't, it's probably not. You can basically limit that list to about 10 cities (New York, L.A., Chicago, Philly, Miami, San Fran, Washington, and Boston are about the only ones that almost everyone has heard of.) Atlanta (olympics) and Dallas (everyone knows/hates Bush) are probably close on that list too.

If you want to argue that Nashville is better than Cincinnati or Baltimore or whatever, that's fine. I'd take London over all of those 2nd tier cities.

bearsfan_51
10-26-2011, 10:20 AM
This city has so much more going on than just country music. That's a stereotype that's just not true anymore.
And explain culturally remote for me. Because Nashville is probably the most diverse city in the south.
I'm not taking this personally or anything I'm just truly confused. It's definitely in the top half of the league in terms of cities I would love to live in even if I was unbiased.
Also, Knoxville is almost nothing like Nashville. Now that is a culturally remote city.
I'm just saying that I've been to Nashville numerous times because I have family in Tennessee.

bantx
10-26-2011, 10:22 AM
Well living somewhere and vacationing is two different things.

bearsfan_51
10-26-2011, 10:24 AM
Well living somewhere and vacationing is two different things.
Not when it comes to making a knee-jerk reaction about whether you are going to live somewhere. Numerous people have said they think it would be hard to convince NFL players to live in London. If it's not hard to convince them to live in all of these 2nd tier American cities, I don't think it will be hard to convince them to live in one of the most important cities in the world.

Jughead10
10-26-2011, 10:27 AM
Not when it comes to making a knee-jerk reaction about whether you are going to live somewhere. Numerous people have said they think it would be hard to convince NFL players to live in London. If it's not hard to convince them to live in all of these 2nd tier American cities, I don't think it will be hard to convince them to live in one of the most important cities in the world.

I completely disagree. The majority of the NFL players do not think the same way you do. They are likely not nearly as culturally open as you are and London will be completely out of their comfort zone. I do think a London team would have to greatly overpay to get players to come there.

Now personally I would live in London over probably 75% of the cities NFL teams are currently located in.

brat316
10-26-2011, 10:40 AM
This city has so much more going on than just country music. That's a stereotype that's just not true anymore.
And explain culturally remote for me. Because Nashville is probably the most diverse city in the south.
I'm not taking this personally or anything I'm just truly confused. It's definitely in the top half of the league in terms of cities I would love to live in even if I was unbiased.
Also, Knoxville is almost nothing like Nashville. Now that is a culturally remote city.

Given you have Caucasian, African Americans, but how many Pacific Islanders, Asian(the yellow and brown type) do you have? I thought Houston was the most diverse in the south.

Also while i'm being politically correct, where do people from the middle east fall into? What bubble do they circle in? They are in Asia, but I doubt anyone considers them Asian. Most people don't think Indians are Asians, when they hear Asia they think China and Japan.
Are Middle East people Caucasian? Cause people from Jerusalem I guess would fill out Caucasian bubble. And Turkey.

nepg
10-26-2011, 10:44 AM
just flew into London for like, the 15th time this year. 5 hour flight, overnight, from the east coast (which was nearly as long as my flight from denver to boston). zero jet lag. it just makes it clear, yet again, for me, that there are absolutely no travel issues with a team located here. if they drew a western division for a series, just set the schedule so that they play both teams consecutively, if you really think it's an issue.
I think people are making a bigger deal of it than it is, too. At the very worst, the NFL could schedule the team's games in quarter-season stints and schedule opposing teams' BYE weeks around having to travel... It's not difficult, and the revenue created would more than make up for the hassle.

My current pondering is whether the Bills could survive if Toronto had its own team... Say you move the Jags to Toronto and the Bucs to London (Jags to AFC East, Miami to AFC South, TB to NFC East, Dallas to NFC South)... Basically, I don't think you can move the Bills from Buffalo and expect to retain the fanbase, but you still want to expand on the Toronto market and get a team in Canada. When the Pats were threatening to move to CT, I was among the many who were ready to jump ship completely.

ElectricEye
10-26-2011, 10:55 AM
Where players want to live is such a minor thing in the grand scheme of thing. I don't think any of the players a potentially international franchise drafted would turn away millions of dollars because they're weary of Europe. Free Agency is another story...but again, guys will go where the money is and to the team that's the best fit for them. Potentially a downfall for some guys? Sure....but it's not really that big of a deal.


The real issue is some of the stuff stephenson got into. The NFL makes more money on TV revenue than they do on attendance at the gate, but it certainly doesn't look good if you have problems similar to the ones Jacksonville and Tampa are currently experiencing. Beyond the logistical problems, you don't have a guaranteed buyer for your product. It's a risk. I'm sure the NFL realizes this, but there's a chance it flat out doesn't work out and the NFL has to walk out with their tails between their legs in five years. One of the main challenges and the one I think would the hardest to get over is scheduling. The Premier League runs from August until May, with the NFL schedule falling right in the middle of that, with plenty of games on Sunday. You really aren't going to draw many eyeballs away from that...you would have about as much success as soccer does drawing views away from an NFL game. Competing directly with a sports that's as ingrained into English culture as football is into American culture just really doesn't seem feasible. Could it work? Potentially, yeah. I've got a much harder time seeing it succeed than I do seeing it fail though.

jrdrylie
10-26-2011, 10:59 AM
The reason most states have no income tax is because they need to encourage people to actually live there.

Taxes are high in London, that's true. I'd certainly rather pay more taxes and live in some place that has history and culture, than make more money and be forced to live in a redneck backwater like Jacksonville. But I also have a reading comprehension beyond a teenager, so I probably don't speak for most pro athletes.

I lived in Jacksonville for 13 years and your description of it being redneck and backwater couldn't be further from the truth. Most of those areas are north of Jacksonville in Nassau County and not part of the city. Jacksonville has far fewer whites and much more blacks compared to the rest of Florida so redneck doesn't really fit. And neither does backwater. Ponte Vedra Beach has some of the nicest golf courses in the country. Jacksonville has some extremely nice neighborhoods where you could buy a house for about a third of the price it would cost you in other NFL cities.

Most of the crap Jacksonville takes from sports fan is the result of things Woody Paige and Tony Kornheiser about seven years ago despite the fact that they had not been to the city in decades. It wouldn't be difficult at all to convince players to come to Jacksonville after they actually step foot in it.

CashmoneyDrew
10-26-2011, 11:01 AM
Given you have Caucasian, African Americans, but how many Pacific Islanders, Asian(the yellow and brown type) do you have?


Because of its relatively low cost of living and large job market, Nashville has become a popular city for immigrants. Nashville's foreign-born population more than tripled in size between 1990 and 2000, increasing from 12,662 to 39,596. Large groups of Mexicans, Kurds, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Arabs, and Bantus call Nashville home, among other groups. Nashville has the largest Kurdish community in the United States, numbering approximately 11,000. During the Iraqi election of 2005, Nashville was one of the few international locations where Iraqi expatriates could vote. The American Jewish community in Nashville dates back over 150 years, and numbered about 6,500 in 2001 - Wikipedia

And these stats were collected over a decade ago, so safe to say it's become even more "cultrually diverse" in that time as Nasvhille is a fast-growing city.

Back to the point of the thread though, I do think there would be plenty of players willing to go to London to play for that team if they got one, but would those players be the best in the league? I can't imagine too many veteran free agents with options would want to sign with them. Not wanting to relocate their young families to entirely new countries when they could stay in the states instead.

CashmoneyDrew
10-26-2011, 12:07 PM
why would they have to relocate their entire family, for a place they're going to be maybe 8 weeks a year? it's becoming more and more clear that a lot of you don't really understand international travel and how ridiculously easy it is.


8 weeks a year? Since when do players get to hang out in cities besides their team's hometown during away weeks? They'll be living in London from July through January when you throw in training camp and the postseason. When they're not there they'll be traveling to the other cities they're playing in that given week.

I just feel as if you're maybe seeing the scenario through your eyes instead of theirs. If you were a late 20-something or early 30-something with young kids and a wife would you go through the process to move them to an entirely new country across the ocean when you had plenty of other options to stay in America? Or would you leave them in America and move away from them for half of the year every year?

I'm not even arguing this from a league or business standpoint. Of course they would make it work with travel plans, game times, logistics and such.

CashmoneyDrew
10-26-2011, 12:55 PM
Look, it's no doubt that most if not everyone on this board would rather live in London than Detroit or Cleveland. Buuut, we're talking about pro athletes here. They're known to let perception, immediate reaction and emotion make decisions for them instead of thinking things through. That's technically part of their job. So I'm just seeing it as these guys will be free agents and their agents will tell them they have offers from the Baltimore Ravens, the Miami Dolphins and then the London Monarchists. I think most of these guys are gonna immediately think, "**** moving to a new country. I'll choose between Baltimore and Miami."
Basically, I think these athletes are going to be like me and have this perception that it could be a bigger hassle than it's worth, even if that perception isn't absolute truth.

And honestly, no I'm not offended at all. It's not like you said I listen to Avril Lavigne or something. And yes, my traveling is limited to the U.S. and the corners of America's hat.

jrdrylie
10-26-2011, 01:14 PM
seriously? jacksonville is a mediocre US city. it's food is mediocre. it's nightlife is terrible. it's not a pretty place to live. the people are nice enough, but no nicer than 95% of the rest of the country. it's cute, though, that you think athletes want to live in jacksonville, but would turn up their nose at london. it's like you've never actually left the south. but hey, at least it's cheap. that's certainly what all nfl players are looking for in free agency. cheap housing.



why would they have to relocate their entire family, for a place they're going to be maybe 8 weeks a year? it's becoming more and more clear that a lot of you don't really understand international travel and how ridiculously easy it is.



you realize there's a far bigger cultural shift (and far more obvious) between half of the us cities and say, san francisco and london, right?

I'm not saying Jacksonville is a fantastic city. Of the other NFL cities I've lived in and visited, it's middle of the road. But it's not a trash hole like you seem to think it is.

Players are going to be there much more than 8 weeks. Training camp itself is 5 weeks long. Then there are 8 home games. That makes 13 weeks. Then there are OTAs and Mini camps. That adds at least 2 more weeks. And then away games, you'll still be away from your family. That means half of the year, you are away from your family. No big deal to single guys. Some guys with families might actually like that. But most won't And some of the younger guys might not want to go there because their hanging-on friends might not be able to.

jrdrylie
10-26-2011, 01:41 PM
not saying it's a ****hole, but it's entirely mediocre in comparison to most other places i've been that could "support" an nfl team.



there's nothing to say that all ota's and minicamps need to be held in the same city you play your games in. there's nothing to say that training camp as a whole needs to take place in the same city you play your games in. you'd be away from your family for away games regardless. and i don't think you have any basis for saying that most won't like that. they'll like it as much as they like having to uproot their family when they get traded, or switch cities in free agency. and enough players do that already that there's simply no way to suggest that all of a sudden, because they'll be a short flight from the east coast, that they won't do it. further, the young players have a ton of money and flights are cheap. if they need an entourage, it's no less reasonable than moving that entourage to oakland from florida.

Okay, you don't hold OTAs and Minicamps in London. Where do you hold them where players wouldn't be away from their families? I know players are away from their families for away games now. But teams travel to away games on Fridays and are back home on Sunday.

Dallas357
10-26-2011, 01:47 PM
the talent walking around at school today in Jacksonville was insane. kent/south campus

murdamal86
10-26-2011, 02:13 PM
the talent walking around at school today in Jacksonville was insane. kent/south campus


Haha I already KNOW what you're referring to

bearsfan_51
10-26-2011, 02:29 PM
I lived in Jacksonville for 13 years and your description of it being redneck and backwater couldn't be further from the truth. Most of those areas are north of Jacksonville in Nassau County and not part of the city. Jacksonville has far fewer whites and much more blacks compared to the rest of Florida so redneck doesn't really fit. And neither does backwater. Ponte Vedra Beach has some of the nicest golf courses in the country. Jacksonville has some extremely nice neighborhoods where you could buy a house for about a third of the price it would cost you in other NFL cities.
I think we're making two different arguments here. You're arguing that the perception of cities like Jacksonville and Nashville is unfair. I'm arguing that Jacksonville and Nashville are the South, and to a lot of people, every place that isn't Atlanta in the South is full of rednecks and is culturally isolated from the rest of the country.

And to be fair, I'm from the midwest, and a lot of people think that about us too.

We're talking about the difference between London, one of the 5 most culturally, historically, and economically important cities in the world, and Jacksonville (and you could sub in places like Cincy, Green Bay, Buffalo, etc). It's such a lopsided argument that it's not even worth having.

Now, Jughead makes a valid point that most NFL players probably don't care about high culture. I'm not sure that's true, becuase while they might not be highly-educated, they are wealthy, and wealthy people still want the finest things in life. But, what they do most certainly care about are sponsers, and there is FAR more corporate sponsorship money to go around in London (even after the footballers get their large share) than you could ever hope to find in Jacksonville. You can play golf anywhere.

jrdrylie
10-26-2011, 02:30 PM
the talent walking around at school today in Jacksonville was insane. kent/south campus

Oh I miss the ladies from the UNF campus. After living in Alabama for a year, I see that a Huntsville 9 is like a Jacksonville 5.

bearsfan_51
10-26-2011, 02:34 PM
Where players want to live is such a minor thing in the grand scheme of thing. I don't think any of the players a potentially international franchise drafted would turn away millions of dollars because they're weary of Europe. Free Agency is another story...but again, guys will go where the money is and to the team that's the best fit for them. Potentially a downfall for some guys? Sure....but it's not really that big of a deal.


The real issue is some of the stuff stephenson got into. The NFL makes more money on TV revenue than they do on attendance at the gate, but it certainly doesn't look good if you have problems similar to the ones Jacksonville and Tampa are currently experiencing. Beyond the logistical problems, you don't have a guaranteed buyer for your product. It's a risk. I'm sure the NFL realizes this, but there's a chance it flat out doesn't work out and the NFL has to walk out with their tails between their legs in five years. One of the main challenges and the one I think would the hardest to get over is scheduling. The Premier League runs from August until May, with the NFL schedule falling right in the middle of that, with plenty of games on Sunday. You really aren't going to draw many eyeballs away from that...you would have about as much success as soccer does drawing views away from an NFL game. Competing directly with a sports that's as ingrained into English culture as football is into American culture just really doesn't seem feasible. Could it work? Potentially, yeah. I've got a much harder time seeing it succeed than I do seeing it fail though.
You're totally correct, but the NFL is probably looking at the NBA and thinking they HAVE to try. The NBA owns the international market. When I told people in Spain I was from Minnesota they knew the following (in order):

1) Ricky Rubio
2) Near Canada
3) Prince
4) Kevin Garnett
5) Branden and Brenda from 90210 (yeah they're a little behind)

Nobody had a clue who Randy Moss was. The NFL is trying their best to create a market in England and Germany, because they're getting globally curbstomped by basketball.

ElectricEye
10-26-2011, 04:07 PM
You're totally correct, but the NFL is probably looking at the NBA and thinking they HAVE to try. The NBA owns the international market. When I told people in Spain I was from Minnesota they knew the following (in order):

1) Ricky Rubio
2) Near Canada
3) Prince
4) Kevin Garnett
5) Branden and Brenda from 90210 (yeah they're a little behind)

Nobody had a clue who Randy Moss was. The NFL is trying their best to create a market in England and Germany, because they're getting globally curbstomped by basketball.

I agree with this, yeah. I imagine they can come up with quite a few reasons NOT to do it in internal conversations, but at the end of the day they really can't feel all that good about leaving a very large slice of revenue on the table. They'll likely convince themselves to give it a shot.

One thing I'll say about basketball internationally vs. football internationally is that it's really a grass roots kind of thing. We were able to get basketball exposed internationally years ago, for a variety of reasons. Basketball has been a sport in the Olympics for over a hundred years, starting in 1904. That's all of 13 years after the game was invented. The NBA as an international entity has been a long coming and didn't necessarily happen with a forceful hand, artificial marketing, and posturing for television revenue. Certainly doesn't hurt that the NBA has 80 something non US born active players and far more passing through it's ranks over the years either. So, with all due respect to amateur football in Europe(which is on the rise. Germany in particular has turned out a first day draft pick in Sebastian Vollmer and is about to turn out another one within the next few years in Bjoern Werner....but it's still not relevant in any way) it's not really a comparable situation at all. The NFL can covet international dollars all they want, but unless they can get the game to take hold at a lower level, I just can't see it going anywhere near as smoothly. That kind of thing takes a major time commitment as well, and they've only seriously been pushing it for a few years.

So I guess what I'm getting at is that it's an uphill battle. The NFL's intent to try to get a more international outreach is clear at this point and I have no problem with it whatsoever in principal...but they better have a damn good plan.

Jughead10
10-26-2011, 04:31 PM
Now, Jughead makes a valid point that most NFL players probably don't care about high culture. I'm not sure that's true, becuase while they might not be highly-educated, they are wealthy, and wealthy people still want the finest things in life. But, what they do most certainly care about are sponsers, and there is FAR more corporate sponsorship money to go around in London (even after the footballers get their large share) than you could ever hope to find in Jacksonville. You can play golf anywhere.

There just aren't clubs like there are here in the US. Things like that. The way NFL players are used to spending there free time in the US will be quite different than it would be in London. Or maybe I'm wrong. And just haven't seeked that out when I went there or would if I ever go back.

bearsfan_51
10-26-2011, 04:38 PM
The clubs in Europe absolutely smoke any club I've ever been to in America. They make us all look like Puritans.

DraftSavant
10-26-2011, 04:44 PM
The clubs in Europe absolutely smoke any club I've ever been to in America. They make us all look like Puritans.

This...

People seriously underestimate how downright whoreish UK girls are, too. Must be the accents.

But yes, Europe's club scene shits all over the US.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
10-26-2011, 05:01 PM
Personally, I think the idea of a team in London is ********. I just don't think there's enough proven support there to support an NFL team. Sure, they sell it out once a year, but that's once a year. If Barcelona decided to re-locate to where I live, I'd go check it out once, remember how boring I find soccer and then not go again. I think most people I know would do the same. Reading some of the "put out a top flight product and the fans will come" sounds a lot like Gary Bettman in bringing hockey teams to the south. I just think there's a cultural difference that makes certain sports big hits in some places and disasters in others. I might be wrong, but I wouldn't want to gamble an NFL franchise to find out.

Jughead10
10-26-2011, 05:48 PM
The clubs in Europe absolutely smoke any club I've ever been to in America. They make us all look like Puritans.

I understand this. But still very different than the clubs here. Especially ones young black men tend to go to. Again, they'd have to be open to something new. And I really don't have faith in NFL players in that aspect.

Ness
10-26-2011, 06:50 PM
The traveling issues would just be ridiculous for the players. Not to mention I don't think a lot of players would ever want to play in London far away from their families and having to emulate to a new culture when all of the other teams are stateside. I just don't see it working out.

Caddy
10-26-2011, 07:09 PM
The traveling issues would just be ridiculous for the players. Not to mention I don't think a lot of players would ever want to play in London far away from their families and having to emulate to a new culture when all of the other teams are stateside. I just don't see it working out.

Is it out of the realm of possibility to think the NFL might consider some sort of housing situation in London for the immediate family of a player/coach who has to make the trip to London?

Also, London >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tampa. I love my Buccaneers, but the city they place in sucks major ass.

regoob2
10-26-2011, 08:51 PM
It's been mentioned, but as others have said, it's probably wrong. If you can convince players to live in Nashville, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Jacksonville, I don't think it will be that hard to convince them to play in London.
I assume there are plenty of kids that wouldnt even consider resigning with a London based team.