This has been mentioned before, and maybe even in this very thread, but it is worth repeating infinitely. At some point, cities are going to push back against this. When you lobby, and demand public tax dollars to fund stadiums for a tax exempt league all in the name of job creation, and stimulating local economies, you better be careful how many of those limited events you take away from the very people who fund your stadium, then turn around and pay for parking, tickets, concessions, and merchandise. I'd like to see cities take a hard line stand and demand x amount of dollars back from those funded stadiums for every game lost to this gigantic expansion effort. ****ing douchebags...

That's why I'm thinking this needs to be positioned as an incentive for fans to buy tickets... not sure how you would do it without making it look clumsy or come off as a "buy tickets or else", but seriously... they have to figure out a way to make the games worth a damn if they're going to do this more.

I just don't know what the end game is, having a team in London? Why? I don't get the point.

What have the ticket sales been like game over game the last few years? Are they buying tickets because it's a rarity or is there actually a burning desire to see more games?

I don't have a problem giving up away games to go to London. Do it all you want

I would argue there is a huge benefit to having your city name promoted internationally. Giving up a home game every other year or so is no big deal.

the wealthy person did what the wealthy person wanted to do.
Tough tooty on you

As long as the Royals don't have to give up any games, I don't give a shit.

I strongly disagree with this. The cities are not going to do a damned thing, stadiums will continue to be built and renovated, and even if we get to the point where EVERY team plays a game overseas and EVERY team loses a home game once every two years, fans will adjust and get used to it.

Not sure, I was just answering your question on why we couldn't just have it be a road game for both teams. That is not possible.

Tickets sales have been terrific for every game, even when its between two shitty teams. I do not believe London can support a local team, but I do think there's interest in the NFL as an occasional novelty a few times a year with many different teams barnstorming through. The international series is being expanded because its been very successful.

They charged STH for 9 home games but raised the prices enough that you still paid more than last year.

Translation: Our fans have kept buying the same old QB approach and the hope of getting a wild card bid every year, so I know I can get by with this shit.

Well they're pretty stupid for not writing that into the lease, and apparently the Bengals old lease was written that way.

And that's what I meant when I said "held hostage". Then again, I don't think the list of cities that are ready to poach a team is really all that long.

My reading comprehension is just fine. You obviously need help to understand a very soft and weak answer that you normally hear from politicians.

I love the bullshit political answer he gave. Why didn't he just come out and say "I don't want to give away another home game for a minimum of "x" years because it's unfair to our fans."

But chairman Clark Hunt said that game probably wouldn’t involve the Chiefs relinquishing a home game, as they did with the Lions game.

"I don’t foresee us playing a home game (internationally) in the near future" he said. “It would be much more likely that we would play an away game before we would play another home game. But certainly, I don’t want to give up another home game in the near future.”

What I took from it was that he doesn't regret ****ing over the fans and the city, but it will be a while until he ****s them over again.

The tickets sell like hotcackes over there so far.

I actually don't think Goodell wants a team over there. I think even he can see that it's not workable.

I think the league makes plenty of money off these games, and eventually he hopes to have a TV deal in the UK that's worth some money. That's what Roger bleeds... green.

I bet they are making more money playing a game overseas then they do here at this point or they wouldn't be doing it.

Roger doesn't give a shit about "workable." He's been ruining the game for years at the expense of money. If he finds a franchise in Europe that's more lucrative than a domestic market, he'll do it. And this is why everybody hates him.

Just move the effing Chiefs to London so we can get a new franchise with ownership that wants to win.

Wow more bitching even thou we curb stomped the lions 45-10. Clark says it's going to be atleast another 4-5 years before another home game. I didn't see people bitch in the 90s when the NFL was doing the exact same thing (I guess people forget Cowboys vs Chiefs in Mexico or Packers vs Chiefs in Tokyo) and say how Playing international preseason games make the players hurt more often and how Lamar was a greedy bitch for choosing money over giving International fans a way to see the sport and tapping into w new economical market to strengthen the league.

There are only 16 games a season. In a league where homefield advantage is critically important. You're forcing 2 teams to prep for a game with serious jet lag. And given how much the NFL bullies cities and taxpayers to give in to their ridiculous demands, the NFL should have no business ****ing over cities that are heavily publicly financed.

**** any idea that puts money over the integrity of the game. **** any idea that ****s over the general public that is filling the pockets of NFL owners.

**** international games. Find different ways to do this. Spend offseasons, training camps, and preseasons abroad -- nobody in the US cares about those games.

There is no other way. Its either this or nothing. NFL fans overseas aren't stupid, they know preseason games don't count.

If the NFL can slowly build it up so that a decade from now they can send 16 games a year overseas (so that each team plays exactly one game a year outside the US) to build fans around the world, that would be very profitable, good for the sport, and they'd be dumb to not at least explore it.

Harumph!!!

I am teh outrage!

I fail to see how an initiative that detracts from the actual game itself, but makes the NFL much more money that they don't even need, is considered "good for the sport."

Oliver tackles this issue pretty well, imo. It's pretty far out there on what these guys get away with and how things are run.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xcwJt4bcnXs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And for the love of God get rid of Thursday night football as well. Same category of -- hurts the game, makes NFL more money. No ****ing thank you.

If a ton of people outside the USA cares about the NFL that otherwise would not have cared without the international series, that is obviously good for the sport.

Advantages:
Makes NFL and rich owners more money

Disadvantages:
-Takes away a home game. Very important in a very short 16 game season
-Forces teams to prep through a short week dealing with major jet lag
-Despite the NFL fleecing cities for massive public financing of stadiums, it dicks over home markets, particularly entertainment districts. Big time.

So again. How does making more money in a league that is already dripping with money do a damn thing good for the sport? It's sad when we think that making money is "good for the sport" vs. protecting the integrity of a game

To keep the competitive balance I would propose that they work up to 16 games overseas, all on Thursday nights. The team involved would each have a bye week the week before so that they will have been off for 10-11 days (depending on a Monday game) and can leave early to avoid any jet lag issues. Coming back they will again be off for another 10-11 days to get back home and adjust to the local time.

Every team gives up one home game every two years. The games can be held wherever they want in the world with this much time between games and the games should be more competitive than the Thursday night crap we get now.

Denver and probably a few other teams are legally precluded from giving up a home game, so that won't work unless (in Denver's case) you increase the schedule by one game thereby the Broncos play "10" games at Pile High.

You are just obviously dead-ass wrong here. All of the other major sports get a ton of international talent every year. If American Football is popular outside the USA, then amateur football might develop, leading to a larger talent pool for college football, and then the pros, etc. Yes, its also profitable for the NFL, but if you can't or won't recognize the fact that having American Football be more than just a weird local sport that only Americans care about is good for the game, then I don't know what to tell you.

Also, you are getting amazingly bent out of shape over one damned home game every few years.

All that does is create more competitive balance. It doesn't fix the competitive imbalance.

They would still have to play the next week recovering from reverse jet lag playing a team that has 10 un-lagged days to prep. And when it comes to playoff bubbles, you'll have teams with 8 home games making the playoffs over teams who only had 7. It's a pure money grab.

I'm bent out of shape about it? It's 6% of an entire season. Tell me another league that would marginalize that. No one game is more critical in pro sports than an NFL game because of how few games they play.

Okay, I agree that there is some small positive benefit to what you say above. But it is not worth creating competitive balance to do that. And there's a major limit to how much you can grow the sport beyond how fast it's growing now. Because football only works if you have a great deal of structure. It's not like basketball or soccer where you can learn to play well by casual pickup games.

There are ways to grow intrigue. Silly to believe you have to go all-in or bust unless you're going for a money grab. Start by shipping over as many meaningless games and events to Europe as possible.

How is Denver "legally precluded" from giving up a home game?

Contract between the team and the municipal body which owns the stadium. Broncos must play 10 games a year to maintain the lease.

Weird, Alnorth said that leases don't cover the amount of games played each year.

http://espn.go.com/blog/denver-bronc...ayed-in-london

Saurce.

Here are a few other ideas:
-Ship more preseason games and training camp time over to Europe
-Ship over the pro bowl and all their competitions
-Play LOTS of friendlies. Including in the postseason. An awesome experience -- Chiefs' fans can watch Aaron Murray play a full game. UK can root for their home team to beat he Chiefs' backups
-Create a European combine
-Hell, if owners are going to fight to expand playoffs, then consider competitive exhibitions in the postseason

All of these things significantly grow interest and TV revenue internationally as well as domestically. NONE of them **** with regular season games. Does very little to dick over NFL markets that heavily rely on home games.

Nice. Just another example of how the Broncos are about winning and the Chiefs are about revenue.

Sweet