Roger Goodell's latest acid trip: a team in London

[Prison Bitch]

He is trying hard to replace Bud Selig as the craziest man in pro sports. And Clark weighs in at the end:


Hype Machine in Overdrive, N.F.L. Pops Back to London

The Jacksonville Jaguars have committed to play a game here each of the next four seasons, giving rise to talk that they or another team will one day move to London and become the N.F.L.’s first franchise overseas.

“We are going to be aggressive because we see the fans’ reactions to football and we want to be there on a more regular basis,” N.F.L. Commissioner Roger Goodell said in May.

“Roger has a vision for a permanent team in London, but he’s one of the very few that does,” said Marc Ganis, the president of SportsCorp, a sports advisory company that works with N.F.L. teams. “Commissioners get pie-eyed about international. What he got was an agreement to put on two games, maybe three, but he didn’t get a timeline” to establish a team in London.


Goodell has said that he hopes to turn the N.F.L. into a $25 billion business by 2027, from $10 billion now. To do that, the league would need fresh sources of income, including from overseas.

“Certainly, the league has grown substantially here in the United States and continues to do so,” said Clark Hunt, the chairman of the Kansas City Chiefs and the head of the league’s international committee. “But at some point, to keep that growth rate up, the international opportunity for the league is very important.”

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/29...to-london.html

[splatbass]

Originally Posted by Rausch

And?

I wasn't talking about them. I was saying most fans in the states wouldn't travel with the team like they would if it was a 2 hour flight or couple hour drive...

I don't think "most" fans travel with the team. I think "a few" fans travel with the team, so I don't think it would be that significant.

[MBSiMMENS]

Its the National Football League! they would have to change it to the IFL

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by splatbass

I don't think "most" fans travel with the team. I think "a few" fans travel with the team, so I don't think it would be that significant.

You have a $#it ton of teams in the NE area that are the same or shorter drive times than mine to KC.

And even here I could watch the Chiefs (in the right year) @ Arrowhead, StL, Tenn, or possibly Chicago. And even without traveling fans there are huge numbers of out of state fans that show up for the road team.

I'm not saying it could never happen only that it makes more sense to start that international move with the 'Nadians...

[tk13]

The difference with Hawaii is they're behind everyone. London would be ahead of everyone... so it'd present different challenges. I do think the time zone issue would be difficult. This isn't college football, it's pro football... and the level of talent across NFL teams is generally pretty equal. Yeah there are teams like Jacksonville, but they're the first team that gets brought up in every relocation discussion because they're not successful.

The other problem is Hawaii can easily play primetime games. You could never play a Thursday, Sunday or Monday night game in London. You'd also be putting them in a tough spot if you made them play any primetime games on the road.

[splatbass]

Originally Posted by MBSiMMENS

Its the National Football League! they would have to change it to the IFL

Are you aware that the "National" in the National Hockey League refers to CANADA? It has multiple teams in two countries and still calls itself NHL, so I don't see why the NFL couldn't do the same.

In fact, the NHL has more teams in the US than it does in Canada, the nation that "National" refers to in NHL.

[bandwagonjumper]

I'm not sure but what about the tax exempt status of the NFL? Would it work in the UK? I've read somewhere that Usain Bolt doesn't run in the UK because his tax bill would be too high. Anyway its a ridiculous idea. London would never support an NFL franchise.

[MMXcalibur]

Originally Posted by crossbow

This is a great idea:

The teams that play there will incur massive travel costs.
No fans in America will be able to attend.
Socker is the national game so NFL investment is a colossal waste of money there.

Hey asshole, why not invest in countries on the same continent?

Winnipeg Jets!

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by splatbass

1. Who ever said Hawaii is good? And how is that relevant? They have been good in the past. When June Jones was coach they were ranked, and played in the Sugar Bowl. And had two QBs during that time that broke NCAA passing records (Timmy Chang and Colt Brennan). So the distance didn't keep them from being good.

2. Currently there are five UH players in the NFL:

Davone Bess Cleveland Browns
Alex Green New York Jets
Kealoha Pilares Carolina Panthers
Samson Satele Indianapolis Colts
Isaac Sopoaga Philadelphia Eagles

There have been many more in the past. You might remember a kicker named Jason Elam, for example. Tied the record for longest field goal in NFL history. Gave the Chiefs fits for years.

So I could care less if a bad football program is sustainable on Hawaii. Can a legit annual contender compete in London? No. Not without a ridiculous amount of attention from the schedulers

But none of this has anything to do with the issue, it is just strawmen.

Who cares if Hawaii is any good? Because you keep throwing that name out there to prove that it could work instead of asking of it could work without ****ing with competitive balance.

I don't give a shit if a few players did okay coming out of Hawaii. I care if you can put a team in England without a ridiculous time zone issue. You can't.

[splatbass]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Who cares if Hawaii is any good? Because you keep throwing that name out there to prove that it could work instead of asking of it could work without ****ing with competitive balance.

I don't give a shit if a few players did okay coming out of Hawaii. I care if you can put a team in England without a ridiculous time zone issue. You can't.

I was answering YOUR POST, dumbass. Everything I posted was in answer to QUESTIONS YOU ASKED. Damn, you are stupid as shit.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by splatbass

I was answering YOUR POST, dumbass. Everything I posted was in answer to QUESTIONS YOU ASKED. Damn, you are stupid as shit.

Yeah. I'm stupid as shit. You're the one claiming England can handlea team just because a shitty college team has handled it.

No I did not literally means Hawaii has never had good players. You know what? Memphis has a shitty program but happened to have Dontari Poe.

Nobody should use Hawaii as a suggestionthat a team in hawaii could work. Let alone call somebody stupid for pointing out the idiocy of the comment.

Fine. If you want a shitty Nfl team that can make it work and maybe grooms five guys in England be my guest. There is nothing stupid about saying that Hawaii is so ****ing fare down the list of schools any recruit wants to go to.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by crossbow

This is a great idea:

The teams that play there will incur massive travel costs.
No fans in America will be able to attend.
Socker is the national game so NFL investment is a colossal waste of money there.

Hey asshole, why not invest in countries on the same continent?

So short sighted.

[Deberg_1990]

How bout the Anchorage Jaguars?

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by bandwagonjumper

London would never support an NFL franchise.

Are you kidding. A city the size of LA that has the third biggest economic footprint in the world? They also have a stadium which would immediately be the largest in the NFL. Its not economics that doesn't make sense, its the logistics.

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by Hail2TheChiefs

Let me express my thoughts, first as a Scotsman (British born) and secondly as an NFL fan.

1- We had a second tier NFL league in Europe with franchises between 1995-2006 in Scotland, England, Spain, Holland and Germany. When the leagues life support machine was pulled, there were 5 teams in Germany and one in Holland. Hardly NFL Europe!

2- Attendences! Apart from a few 40k plus games in Germany the fans didnt support it, my team the Scottish Claymores got 15,000 at one game because the half time entertainment was Deacon Blue! People left after half time! Our average was betweeen 8-10k in Glasgow and Edinburgh and one of the reasons we lost our franchise to Hamburg.

England has a team for 3 seasons, (I say England as they couldn't make it work in London so the last season they "toured the country") in 1998 they lost their franchise to Berlin.

3- One off games vs buying season books - The reason I mention NFLE in the first 2 points is a lot of the "bums on seats" on these games are travelling from all over Europe, I know fans from Glasgow, Dublin, Edinburgh, Amsterdam, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Barcelona, Cologne and Hamburg who travel once a year to see whatever team is on offer. (Cheaper than flying to San Fran or wherever) but the question remains, would they support 8 games?

4- Currency - I mention this as this was a reason for choosing the dutch franchise over the UK one in 2004, that the NFL didn't wish to deal with currency exchanges for both UKP, Euro and USD, now this may have changed but they were very "profits driven" in 2004.

5- Apathy of the GB public, like it or not, over there it will always be a "minority sport", would the GB public support it?

6- NFL Owners, they are big babies, they will not like the idea of increased operating costs travelling to London, and if you are in the division Once a year!

I think this post got overlooked, some real insight here as to why a London team wouldnt work.

[notorious]

Taxes would suck.