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

[scho63]

WOW!!! -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!

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.”

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

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."

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.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by alnorth

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

[Hydrae]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

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.

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.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by Hydrae

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.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

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

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.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Hydrae

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.

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.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by alnorth

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.

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.

[Bugeater]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

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.

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

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by Baconeater

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.

[Bugeater]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

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.

[Discuss Thrower]

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

Saurce.

[chiefzilla1501]

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.

[Bugeater]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

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

Saurce.

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

[Mile High Mania]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

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

Saurce.

Sweet