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.”

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by BigMeatballDave

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

Originally Posted by Clark Hunt

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.

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.

[Bugeater]

Originally Posted by alnorth

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.

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

Originally Posted by alnorth

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

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.

[scho63]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Is the reading comprehension around here approaching zero?

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.”

[Bugeater]

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.

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

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?

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.

[philfree]

Originally Posted by Cochise

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.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Cochise

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.

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.

[baitism]

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

[WeathermanKumke]

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.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by WeathermanKumke

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.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

**** 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.

[ShortRoundChief]

Harumph!!!

I am teh outrage!

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by alnorth

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.

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."

[Chromatic]

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...

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.

[chiefzilla1501]

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.