Clark Hunt could care less about local fans-states as much
 

WOW!!! :cuss:-I think Clark Hunt better go back to communications school and learn how to speak to the press because this paragraph is a real doozy, a blunt kick in the teeth to all the loyal fans who have spent thousands and thousands of dollars over the years while the Chiefs haven't won jack shit! If he really feels this way, why even spend another dime for this team? What a piss poor response! :shake:

So good for the Chiefs and the NFL but who cares about the local fans.....

http://espn.go.com/blog/kansas-city-...-sometime-soon

Hunt said he had no regrets about taking the Lions game away from fans at Arrowhead Stadium.

“None whatsoever,’’ he said. “It’s been a great experience for the organization. I know we have fans who are disappointed that this game (was) not at Arrowhead, and I understand that, but I think it was the right thing for us to do for the Chiefs and the National Football League.

=================================

Look for Chiefs to play internationally again sometime soon

Adam Teicher, ESPN Staff Writer

LONDON -- The Kansas City Chiefs’ international experience was colored, of course, by the result of Sunday’s game against the Detroit Lions. A lot of things could have gone wrong and the trip overseas would have been a pleasure because of the Chiefs’ 45-10 victory.

Not much of significance did go wrong, though. The Chiefs, as an organization at least, embraced the experience. They threw a party at a local pub for their fans who made the trip, and by all appearances, a good time was had by all.

So the Chiefs may be making another trip to London or for an international game in Germany, Mexico or another location in the near future.

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. Having said that, the league is going to expand the international series. Beginning in 2018, there will be four games here (in London) and the league is already looking at other markets like Mexico, Canada, Germany, Brazil, maybe one day somewhere in Asia. I think the series is going to expand, but certainly, I don’t want to give up another home game in the near future.”


The Chiefs got a lot of fan support at Wembley Stadium in London for their game against the Lions. Charlie Crowhurst/Getty Images)
Hunt said he had no regrets about taking the Lions game away from fans at Arrowhead Stadium.

“None whatsoever,’’ he said. “It’s been a great experience for the organization. I know we have fans who are disappointed that this game (was) not at Arrowhead, and I understand that, but I think it was the right thing for us to do for the Chiefs and the National Football League.

“From a fan standpoint, probably the best experience that the fans have had -- and I enjoyed it, too -- was the pub party that we hosted on Friday. We had approximately 400 fans attend it. And there were a lot that came from Kansas City, but there were also a lot that lived somewhere in Europe who are Chiefs fans and this was their chance to come to a game that wasn’t too far away. There were a lot that live here in the U.K.’’

Teams from the NFL’s bigger markets have mostly resisted giving up a home game to play internationally. The Chiefs are the first team to relinquish a home game that either wasn’t playing in an obsolete stadium or having trouble selling tickets, or both.

As the NFL expands its international footprint, it will need to remove more games from home U.S. markets. But Hunt, the chair of the NFL’s international committee, said small-market teams like Kansas City’s wouldn’t carry the entire burden of having to relinquish home games.

“I don’t see that at all,’’ Hunt said. “I think we’ll see more teams willing to give up home games. Going back to the first couple years of this series, I think there were very few that were willing to do it. But now there’s a bigger group and that’s going to grow in the future and that’s going to have to grow in the future. I don’t know what the number of international games that will be played but it could be six, it could be as many as eight one (year). And just practically, teams are going to have to give up home games. I think that there’s an acceptance that it’s good for the team, it’s not bad from a football standpoint and it gives you a chance to grow your brand.

“I think five years from now, we’re going to look back and there will be significantly more that have given up a home game. At that point is it going to be every team that has done it? I don’t know.”

gramatically incorrect

Clark Hunt could care less about local fans-states as much--means he has room not to care.

Clark Hunt couldn't care less about local fans-states as much-means he does not care at all

Sorry, teacher mode.

My sister is an english teacher and she would be upset with me! I just watch a video on misstated phrases and this was in there.

Ruler across the knuckles for me..... %(/

Interestingt that Clark is actually the chairman of the international committee. I didn't know that.

Fans waving flags isn't the same as fans cheering until a qbs ears bleed.

I can't believe cities don't speak up about the bullshit practice of replacing home games. It may not matter to Clark hunt. But it sure as hell matters to a bar or hotel owner that loses 1/8 of their nfl games.

Another example of the nfl putting money above the fans.

Screw that! Make it a preseason game and I won't care. But giving up a regular season game sucks big time. Especially a game at Arrowhead.

The problem with Clark and the Hunt family is that they are just business men. They just don't truly love football enough to go after a title at all costs like some other owners. They hire office personnel to run the brand and if they are making money then that's ok with them and the record doesn't matter. As long as tickets are sold and the fan base is not flying banners over the stadium it will not change. As long as the Chiefs are not complete bottom feeders nothing will change.

Until KC falls ass backwards into a great QB we are stuck in the same place year after year. The organization will not do what needs to be done to find one.

The cities should be pissed, especially considering the amount of tax dollars they pour into these clubs. Every home game is a windfall for Jackson County and they got screwed out of their revenue.

Like so many in charge, he's out of touch.

The NFL is changing. This is what the league wants. IMO, it's out of touch as well.

FYP

It's tantamount to theft, IMO. Every lost home game is money out of the pockets of working class folk in the service industry & food out of the mouths of their children. If a pro sports organization is partly publicly funded in any significant capacity then they have an obligation, in my opinion, to play as many home games as they are allowed. Entire economies spring up around that public funding, and its the lower rungs on the ladder that get hit hardest when a home game is lost.

The "international ****fest series" is such a great success, next year Cowboys, Steelers and Patriots will host a game in London.

grammatically

are we surprised....No.

His attempt to field a competitive team with a competent coach has failed many times....I don't think he gives two rats pa-toots about anything the fans say.

The fools in all of this are the fans....Fans keep buying their merchandise and keep their butts in the seats and keep paying $32 to cook their BBQ 8 times a year.

Clark has nice hair

<a href="http://s193.photobucket.com/user/telepicker97/media/Mobile%20Uploads/agreebyrd_zpsy4kw6hqd.gif.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z164/telepicker97/Mobile%20Uploads/agreebyrd_zpsy4kw6hqd.gif" border="0" alt=" photo agreebyrd_zpsy4kw6hqd.gif"/></a>

Wow. If I were a season ticket holder, he just made the decision for me to never buy them again.

It just gets easier and easier to not give Clark Hunt another ****ing dollar.

**** that smarmy prick.

FYP

I'm not sure what part of that paragraph would upset you. It's just stating the obvious

Just 1 game back of the 6th seed.

If you start me up...

It's a busness, don't take it personally. And when he asks you for your $, remind him it's a business. He will understand.

**** you, CHunt.

Interesting which paragraphs you highlighted with no mention of this one:

The international games will be happening, nothing the fans can do to stop that but bitch. But Clark, as head of the International Committee (which was interesting news), set an example this year with this game. This does not mean he expects to give up a game a year like Jacksonville. But this will allow the committee to put more pressure on other top tier teams to give up home games down the road.

Guess that statement isn't surprising to me at all. The Hunts have always been NFL first over locality.

I won't get to butt hurt over this. The NFL knew exactly what teams to go to to surrender the home game. The Hunts have always been the biggest supporters of the NFL did we expect them to say no?

The stadium wasn't even full. I saw on the broadcast that several rows of the seats had a chiefs covering over them. I would probably be correct to assume that Detroit's side had the same thing. London and/or the UK must be paying a lot of money to get the NFL in Europe.

And this is why we haven't won a playoff game in 20 years, nor a Super Bowl in 45. Thanks, Clark. We appreciate you, too.

I don't understand why people are outraged at the quoted paragraph or the story as a whole. Its pretty much completely accurate. The international series has been very successful, and it is important to the NFL. If giving up a home game this year puts pressure on successful franchises to do the same in the future, then that makes a lot of sense as well.

You're putting all that on Clark? You realize Clark has been the actual 'owner' for less than a decade, yes?

I will agree, however, that Lamar got his championship and didnt seem all that interested in one after that.

Still, it's the football guys that put the product on the field, the owner just pays the bills.

Wembley stadium seats 86,000 for American Football. Attendance was 83,624 (97.2% full)

I'm waiting for one of these cities to file a lawsuit over this bullshit. I don't understand why it hasn't happened yet.

Every owner in the nfl will say exactly the same thing

Probably because the people who would need to bring forth the suit are too broke to hire legal representation??

It hasn't happened yet because that would be a very absurd lawsuit. The city is not even guaranteed to keep their team past the end of their current lease, much less 8 regular season home games every year.

If you were paying the bills, would you be satisfied with what is happening with the Chiefs? Owners generally hold people accountable for poor results.

Wow. What an absurd overreaction this thread is. I guess I gotta say, if not watching the 2-5 Chiefs take on a terrible Lions team in person upsets you, then you are a bigger fan than me.

The Colts were in the AFC Championship Game last year and just fired their OC.

Todd Haley was fired less than a year after going 10-6 and winning the division.

Andy Reid has not done a ****ing thing since going 9-0 against backups and 3rd string QBs in early 2013.

These are just facts.

If it's great business and good for teams... then send over the top teams. If you want to generate interest, you have to do better than Bills/Jags.

Don't send the spare teams that are looking for exposure - send the best of the best, really try to do it right.

And, not sure what I'm missing, but why couldn't both teams playing in Europe be playing 'road games'?

Grabbed this from Wikipedia about next season -
"2016[edit]
On October 7, 2015 the league announced that a resolution had been passed to schedule international games at additional locations to Tottenham until 2025. This means games will still take place at Wembley in 2016 but it is also possible games will take place outside of Wembley. Mexico City is thought likely to join the slate for 2016.[42] On October 22, 2015 it was confirmed that at least two games per year will remain at Wembley until at least 2020 and that the Jacksonville Jaguars will continue to play a home game there annually throughout the agreement.[43] Subsequent to this, on November 3, 2015 the NFL announced that it had reached an agreement with the Rugby Football Union to host regular season games at Twickenham Stadium from 2016 onwards, with a minimum of three, and as many as five games to be held over the initial agreement period of three years.[44]

Jacksonville will face either the Denver Broncos, Oakland Raiders, Minnesota Vikings, Green Bay Packers, an AFC North team, or one of their divisional rivals at Wembley and it is rumored that the Washington Redskins are considering playing a home game there too. Green Bay have confirmed they would be interested in traveling to London as an away team.[45][46]

Both the Houston Texans and Pittsburgh Steelers have expressed interest in playing a game at Estadio Azteca (or possibly Estadio Olímpico Universitario) in Mexico City for 2016 although Houston would not be prepared to give up a home fixture.[47][48] (The two teams are not currently slated to face each other in 2016, unless they finish in the same position in their respective divisions in the 2015 season standings.)"

He's been through 3 gms and 4 hcs so far

Clark Hunt is trying to make money for his business? Holy shit....I'm shocked.

So it's just another example of cities being held hostage by the team. Didn't the lease just get renewed with the renovations?

Clark gave up a home game for the London game and gave up an available weekend at Arrowhead for the American Royal.

Clark is in the entertainment business, owners such as Robert Kraft are in the business of winning.

Robert Kraft is in the business of making money as well... do you seem him readily giving up a home game to play in London?

Well, I'm a fan and so I would want the team to succeed on the field...that's a completely different perspective than an owner of a franchise who has to take into consideration the overall success of the league. Should I hope that Clark has the same desire to win a SB as I do, sure. Does he? No clue.

It seems to me, at least, that Clark has acted much quicker than his father in regard to holding people accountable. He can hire/fire the GM and HC. Naturally, those changes will necessitate changes at lower levels. I dont expect the owner to be involved in the hiring decisions that are the responsibility of the HC and GM.

The NFL is testing the market for moving an NFL team there, not starting one up. That's why it's the Rams and Jaguars playing there consistently. Teams that won't move probably won't have "home games" in London.

There are teams with leases that require them to play their home games at the specific stadium, so a lawsuit wouldn't be absurd at all. In fact, when the Bengals signed their new lease, it specifically allowed for them to play two 'home' games elsewhere in any 5 year period, in order to avoid any problems.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200...nal-home-games

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...mes-in-london/

You mean like back in 2012?

LMAO

The Patriots were the visiting team for that game. The Rams were the home team.

Oh....and don't forget 2009 as well.

St. Louis was the "home" team in London and gave up a home game in 2012, not the Patriots.

In 2009 when the Patriots played in London, Tampa was the home team and gave up a home game.

The Patriots have never given up a home game to play in London.

Shit....nevermind. 2009 was an away game as well.

Meh, whatever money the city lost on the game was made up for with the Royals.

810 played the entire interview they had with Hunt on Sunday. It was actually pretty informative. Another reason they pushed for the game this year was the success of the Royals and the booking of the Sports Complex. They tried to bring in more concerts to offset losing a Chiefs game day.

Were season ticket prices at least 15% (3% for inconvenience) lower than the previous year? If not, I'd be figuring out a way to give the Hunts a big old middle finger.

Is the reading comprehension around here approaching zero?

Interesting. Probably means Clark gave some sort of concession to the county the last time the lease was renewed in order to be able to do this.

We just want to be outraged.

Approaching?? No...I'd say the level has been statically there for a while now.

Trying to decide if this false thread title is worth sending the OP an infraction over. Eh, maybe just a neg rep.

Well, CHunt said that he didn't want to lose another home game, so maybe really could care less and be like, "**** em all, I don't care I'm counting my money."??

So yeah...neg rep for vagueness in wording.

The title is completely false. Clark didn't say that or anything like that. He made some throwaway statement that he thought the London games were a good idea and he's glad they participated.

In fact, the Teicher piece specifically says they are NOT likely to play a home game there again anytime soon.

But for some reason there are a few yokels who are unhinged that the Chiefs might suck their way through 7 dates at Arrowhead instead of 8 every couple of years. Why, who can guess? But some people are ready to launch a rebellion over the team playing 1 London game in what, 4-5 years of the international series.

I think the point is why does Clark have to be so eager to do something that puts the Chiefs at a competitive disadvantage... i.e. give up a home game at Arrowhead?

Amen.

What, you think they woulda curbstomped the Detoilet Lions 55-3 inside Arrowhead??

Maybe. But how much of an edge do you need to obliterate the Lions??

If anything, it seemingly made the team sharper, knowing that they didn't have that Arrowhead energy to draw from...

Clark is right.

Op should be ashamed. Clark did not dis the fans.

Meanwhile....Great Seats Still Available!

Amphibians. Why do you ask?

WE WILL BE OUTRAGED AND YOU WILL LIKE IT

Well yes, but when a city builds a stadium, they are doing it only with the guarantee that the team remains in the city for X years. There is no guarantee of 8 games a year played in that stadium.

If you don't like it, fine. Don't build/renovate your stadium, and lose your team to a city that will.

Even if they have no intention of placing a team there anytime soon, it still makes a lot of sense to fill whatever demand there is overseas for live meaningful NFL games. If they can build fans overseas, then they can sell their games to local TV, sell online subscriptions and apparel, making more money, etc.

Lots of division games coming up!!

Get your tickets for the Chiefs playoff run TODAY!!

ROFL

Garlics make feets stank.

Good at grammar, bad at typing. Getting worse all the time

Hey, think of the marketing campaign.. they could really make a show of it, with events onsite, shirts -- "Every game is a playoff game, be a part of the action now."

People just need start putting their wallet where their mouth is and quit spending money.

actually all the fans of each club needs to.

quit going to games and buying gear. Cities also need to tell them to get bent when they want new stadiums.

especially when you have franchises like the chiefs. An owner who likes money over championships.


personally i would love to see a new league take them on. Start out with 8 to 10 teams and a minor league system.

It is not mathematically possible to avoid taking a home game away from someone when a game is played overseas.

What is the weather like in fantasyland? Is it near the ocean?

You're missing one big piece of the revenue puzzle...the TV contracts. If you want to try to 'boycott' every NFL sponsor, good luck.

and it wouldn't make much sense for it to happen. Clark and every other owner gets more $ from Patriots tickets sold than from tickets sold at some small market that's charging half as much per non-premium ticket.

That's that part where I get lost...

I realize that divisional games wouldn't go over, then you have the games vs the set division based on order of finish, those shouldn't go over and you have what 2 games per team that are really just there, right.

So, with those 2 games per team, there's got to be something that can be done to make what we send over more interesting.

Maybe that's a way to drive "sell outs or ticket sales". If you're the Jags or a club like that and your not selling out home games, guess what - we ship 1 off every other year.

There's no way one of the big teams would just say yes to shipping a home game and why would they do it?