Sooooooo what was the point behind the London 'home' game again?
 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Roger Goodell on possibility of a Super Bowl in Kansas City: &quot;That&#39;s not being seriously contemplated.&quot; <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/chiefs?src=hash">#chiefs</a></p>&mdash; Jeff Rosen (@jeff_rosen88) <a href="https://twitter.com/jeff_rosen88/status/591677482031525888">April 24, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Anyone who thought we might get a SB because of it was out of their goddamn mind.

I don't disagree, but that was the justification for giving up the home game..

It was in some people's minds because Goodell did say something to that effect. He never guaranteed it though. If that's the reason Clark agreed to it then he's as dumb as some of the people on this board.

Because it allows Clark to push his franchise and the NFL brand on people that largely don't and probably won't care about football.

$$$$$ for the league and Clark

Clark agreed to it for the same reason every other owner does, money. Goodell isn't acting in a vacuum here, he just takes all the PR hits for the owners. That's basically his job. The owners want to get teams in LA and London and watch the cash roll in.

This is an outrage!

I mean we have like 25 hotel rooms where were these people going to stay?

Clark Hunt is supportive of the London initiative. Since he owns a team, this is a logical way to show that support and contribute.

Yep, and our food stores would run out on the first day.

I never got the sense the London game was tied to the Super Bowl. I saw it more as Clark earning admiration and money from the people he really wants to impress, at the expense of the people who make the whole enterprise possible.

So that we could get 3 home games in the first 11 weeks.

I can't see a team in London being anything other than a logistical disaster that does nothing but piss off the American fans.

what does a London game and a superbowl in KC have to do with each other again?

When the Chiefs finally make a Superbowl, they will play the game in London.

Did the Chiefs reduce the price of season tickets by one game?

I don't care where they play it as long as I can watch it.

And to reiterate, Oakland/San Diego/KC are at a competitive disadvantage because they are all eligible to lose a home game to London but Denver cannot due to legal language involved in building Incestco Field.

Your family better mount a flatscreen inside your casket.

The London team is a pipe dream logistically. Its a 5-6 hour flight from the east coast and a 10-12 hour flight from the west coast.

You would think if they wanted to grow the game internationally they would focus on say Mexico City and Monterrey. Much closer and the cultural diffusion is much greater.

That or a stripper. Either way it'd be alright

Hell in that Deadspin article it claims that this game is going to cost the Chiefs money. If playing games over there is a losing proposition now, how is actually having a team over there going to change that? I don't see the TV networks over there paying the kind of money that the American ones do. Where the hell is all this money they think they're going to make going to come from?

Both.

Trying to promote the NFL in socialist England and Europe where there is no $$ and soccer rules, as more and more Islamists populate Europe everyday. Makes sense:rolleyes:

I don't see the whole point of the London game every year either. If the NFL game were really taking off like wild fire over there that's one thing, but it's not otherwise we would be hearing about it and to your point about making $$ which we are not so there must be some other angle which I don't see:hmmm:

Was he referring to one being held in kc or is winning one?

It may be. But I really don't think the owners care. At this point they are going to grease that pig for every cent they can get.

I have no evidence to back it up, but I think their long term goal is to put a team there. Then they can start pulling TV money from Europe. Maybe then start playing games in Germany. I think they believe there's no line they can cross where people will suddenly stop watching football. It's that popular. And they may be right.

There is no point, its an attempted money grab that wont pan out like they hope it will... football was, and will remain, about as popular over there as soccer is here.

They're not going to make football some juggernaut over there no matter how hard they wish it to be so.

Heh, I'm pretty sure the price of everything got jacked up this season, including parking. Got to make up for the lost revenue of an empty Arrowhead somehow!

Yet another reason I'm ok with not being a STH right now. My list of demands keeps growing of they want me to return to being a STH...

1) Consistently win the AFC West (or at the very least be in the running through the season)

2) Consistently be a team capable of winning in the playoffs

3) Draft a QB that has a legitimate chance of being the face of the franchise

4) Stop playing games in foreign countries

I don't think football will ever be a juggernaut over there, but they can still make money. Same way hockey is huge in Canada, but they still have teams in Nashville, San Jose, etc. Even being the 4th or 5th popular sport in London would get them a lot of exposure.

ROFL

Thats a fair point I suppose, just really hate the idea that absolutely dominating the American sports market isnt enough for them... if they just HAVE to have more money, ring up two more expansion franchises here.

Leave the Rams where they are, give LA and, say, Charlotte NC expansion teams.

Ummm Charlotte...?


Anyway, the NFL is ****ed on expansion because they can't adequately balance the schedule with more than 32 teams.

I don't see how any type of further expansion is a good idea, there's already too many teams and not enough players. In fact, I think whacking a couple and going to back to 6 divisions would do a lot to improve the quality of play, which obviously is not any concern to them.

If you wanted the Super Bowl here, maybe you shouldn't have voted against the rolling roof.

Yes, Charlotte.

Its big enough to support an NBA team, and without checking I'm pretty sure its just as big as Jacksonville... it was just a random city to use for an example anyway.

I would think the balancing the schedule part is very arguable, if they want to make it happen... they could make it happen.

Dude...

Sure there are some problematic things with it, but my focus was finding a way for the league to make more money without teams having to fly to London every freakin year... or God forbid actually have a team there, which is an idea they've actually spoken about.

So are you gonna tell him orrrrrrrrr

A second team in Charlotte?

I like the guy and I don't want to make him feel dumb. Maybe he just woke from a 20 year nap?

London Rams.

If only there was some sort of European football league....

Give a 3rd team to Texas. San Antonio could handle one.

I really wish they'd bring that back. Give one team to each NFL team and let it be like the minors are for baseball. More jobs for college players who just need time and more training.

Which should be hint that it ain't going to work but like I said there must be some angle of financial gain from continuing to do this because owners don't like losing $$.

Playing an overseas game is one of the requirements of a team that hosts a SB.

Ok spill it, what am I missing... does Charlotte no longer have their NBA team?

If so, I haven't watched an entire NBA game since Jordan left the Wizards, so I could easily be waaay behind the times... but the point was to think of a city big enough to support an NFL team.

This is what I was getting at, but I intentionally left SA out since Texas already has two teams.

The Carolina Panthers play their home games in Charlotte, NC.

ROFL just goes to show how much attention I pay to the Panthers.

But yeah, I think everyone knows the point I was trying to make by now.

Hunt is merely checking off the boxes that he can in order to try and get a SB in KC. He is going to get it down to where the only thing left is the rolling roof. At that point he will get a guarantee within so many years to host a SB. He will use this to leverage the local government to get the rolling roof.

But according to Goodell KC doesn't have enough quality hotels either. Not sure how that would be handled.

Yes. They did.

Depending on where you sit? The people in the lower bowl are paying more this season, iirc.

It has worked and not worked. San Jose is a good market for the NHL because they are the only professional team in San Jose.

San Jose, Nashville, and Tampa Bay have worked. Phoenix, Carolina, and Miami haven't worked and those teams need to move probably.

Luckily there are plenty of places without an NBA team and/or would be hockey friendly like KC, Seattle, Quebec City and Milwaukee.

You're thinking short term. Getting a team in London and getting a good football base there is worth billions in the future.
Posted via Mobile Device

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NRTymVjdLNQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Weren't we promised like last years super bowl already? The only condition was we had to build the roof?

Are you actually in favor of a London team or just talking about monetary considerations?

Because **** a London team, talk about a homefield advantage.

I'm in the upper level and my seats went up in cost.

Sweet lord, the god-awful UNM Lobos want $180.00 a ticket for seats in the 30 to 50 yard lines.

They've won a postseason game more recently than the Chiefs

Sad, isn't it?

This is the same group of owners that locked out the players 3-4 years ago pretty much the entire offseason, just because they weren't making enough money. This was just after signing a multi-billion dollar TV contract for Monday Night Football.

I dont understand why a trip to London isn't considered an away game for both teams. It's a hassle/disruption to travel to England to play...shouldn't cost either team or their fans.

Think about how incredibly stupid that is for a second. Just where in the **** are you going to get the home game FROM to make up for it?

The schedule must be balanced.


They should just do away with the stupid ****ing idea altogether.

Stupid...? Both teams have 8 away games. If they were playing a divisional game..then it would make a difference. Yes..it would alter the flow of the schedule but every team should have 8 home games a season. I see what you are saying..but the teams that travel shouldn't be penalized for the effort. KC has 9 away games this season with one across the ocean..how is that an even playing field? KC missed the play-offs by one game last year...It's ****ed up.

OK, so call it an away game for both teams......you still have 16 games in 17 weeks. What the hell does it matter? The Chiefs aren't going to get another game in Arrowhead to make up for playing in London.

Explain how that could POSSIBLY work. You've been drinking plenty today haven't you?

I edited my post...I dont think the burden should be put on the traveling teams. If that means every other division loses a home game on alternating years..so be it. Putting two franchises on a 9 away game schedule in an unfair advantage...the whole thing needs to stop. Denver gets 8 home games..KC 7..how the **** is that a fair deal? They should only be playing exhibition games there.

Yeah, and its disgusting... they're like hogs at a trough.

None of those owners could ever possibly spend all the money they have in their own lifetimes, swear to God I'll never understand that level of greed.

How much is enough to sate their lust, for real?... I'm more like a Tamba Hali kinda guy guy... "You're saying I've got 20 million squirreled away? well **** it then, I don't need any more than that".

Between Thursday Night football, London game, wanting an expanded playoff, getting rid of the extra point, lobbying for more pass-friendly rules, the veteran combine, and wanting even more games internationally and possibly a team there? The NFL is on a slow road to fist ****ing themselves to death.

I still believe that in terms of integrity of the game, a game in London is the worst piece of shit stupid ****ing idea ever.

Yes

You dont understand how the Elite class rolls...It's about power, influence and control. Once you can afford everything..its all that's left for them. It's sport..like big game hunting. It's a microcosm designed to ensure that the level of wealth continues. They arent worried about having a Ferrari..

OK, yes they did drop one game but they also raised ticket prices all around to cover it.

No, call them the "London Crumpets".

Yup. I'm betting the NFL is also going to compensate all the hotels, restaurants, bars, and shops that now have one less week of home game football in Kansas City.