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 Mile High Mania

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

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

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Valiant

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.

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

[KCTitus]

Originally Posted by Valiant

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.

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.

[ChiliConCarnage]

Originally Posted by KCChiefsFan88

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

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.

[Mile High Mania]

Originally Posted by alnorth

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

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?

[Mr. Flopnuts]

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...

[Mile High Mania]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

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?

[RealSNR]

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

[wazu]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

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...

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.

[Toby Waller]

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

[TLO]

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

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

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...

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.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

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?

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.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

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?

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.

[007]

Originally Posted by Otter

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.

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