Comments on: League moves toward “home” teams for foreign games

By: TFBuckFutter

TFBuckFutter — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:14:09 +0000

Of course, he has a shit ton of money so he may not have noticed a $1500 difference from one year to the next….
Thanks though, Slow Joe. I have wondered about it. Perhaps there’s a difference, or he could just be wrong.

By: TFBuckFutter

TFBuckFutter — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:12:56 +0000

“Slow Joe says:
March 29, 2010 2:22 PM
Dude, what in the hell are you talking about? I have season tix to the Bucs and we only paid for nine games this past year because of the one game that was in London.”
Weird.
I have a friend with club seats to the Bucs, and he had to pay for all 10 games, and he opted to travel to London for the game, and had to purchase a ticket there too.
I told him that didn’t sound right and he assured me that the package is for 10 home games period.

By: brasho

brasho — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:48:06 +0000

Flori-hole, you need to stop making stupid comments that have basis in fact or reason and actually think these things out. The Bucs aren’t moving: they have a new stadium, the Glazers would know better than to bring another franchise to England becauase even though the Brits hate the Glazers they’ll never boycott Manchester United but they sure as heck would do everything in their power to keep the Bucs from ever selling tickets.

By: Slow Joe

Slow Joe — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:22:00 +0000

“I’m curious if anyone else knows that for the teams designated as “Home” in the overseas games….that team’s season ticket holders still have to pay for the tickets for that game.
And if they choose to travel to foreign soil to watch it….they have to BUY ANOTHER TICKET.
That has to be one of the biggest ripoffs of a league notorious for it.”
==============================
Dude, what in the hell are you talking about? I have season tix to the Bucs and we only paid for nine games this past year because of the one game that was in London.

By: RiskyDave

RiskyDave — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:05:26 +0000

Skaybaltimore: “How about RiskyDave for NFL commish?”
As I’ve just lost my job it would be a pleasure. Where do I sign?
As a Vikings fan I’d have to move the NFL to Minnesota, though

By: GoBrowns19

GoBrowns19 — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:53:16 +0000

When I read stories like this is really makes me question the future of the NFL. Move the team to L.A. or Utah, or Boise even…don’t make it a laughable league please!!!!!!!!!

By: kpweaver27

kpweaver27 — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:19:22 +0000

The hubris within these concepts is alarming, that much is certain. This poster hit it right on:
“Ollie says:
March 29, 2010 9:48 AM
The NFL and its greed, like all big business, will not be happy until they destroy this great institution. Enough is never enough!!
32 teams and even divisions, not enough. Need 34.
16 game season, not enough. Need 18.
#1 sport in America, not enough. Need Europe.”
The NFL powers that be believe that the league is untouchable and can only keep getting better. We might have a lockout on our hands, and they are talking about an expansion that would never work for most of the reasons listed above? Listen Goodell. Your league is good now, but just ask Fay Vincent and Bud Selig about the invulnerability of a sport. This isn’t a xenophobic comment but, I live in a state with an NFL team–the Colts. Some of my tax dollars have gone to renovate that stadium to draw tourism. I would not be happy if even one regular season game was played somewhere else. As a taxpayer, not just as a fan, I insist they play where we paid to have them play.

By: Gam(e)_is_on

Gam(e)_is_on — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:12:22 +0000

Mayby Glazer should do a fire-sale and throw the BUCS into the deal when he sells ManU to the Red Knights.

By: BroncoBourque

BroncoBourque — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:09:13 +0000

This is a good idea in theory but I don’t think it will make the games any more successful in these foreign cities. I live just over an hour away from Toronto and I know one of the reasons the Bills in Toronto package isn’t working as well as hoped is that people in the area already have teams they root for. The concept that because you have a team play out of a location once per year is going to convince those people to addopt that team as their own just doesn’t work. It might work for very casual fans but anyone who is an avid fan and has a team already won’t even consider a switch unless Toronto gets their own team, not just a 1 or 2 game sideshow of someone else’s team.
They also overpriced the seats to the point where it is cheaper for someone to drive the 2 hours from Toronto to Buffalo and get premium seats than it is to get nosebleeds in Toronto. Add in the fact that the Rogers Centre where they play the games isn’t very good for football and that is why it hasn’t been a big success.
I don’t imagine the game in London will become any better with a team making the trip every year for all the same reasons.

By: Warpstone

Warpstone — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:59:06 +0000

Urr… I don’t understand why everyone is automatically assuming more games in the UK. It seems to me Canadian and Mexican markets are probably the easiest to expand into on a permanent basis. You also have the advantage that die-hard US fans can still road-trip it to some “home games.”

By: spdy3450

spdy3450 — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:58:12 +0000

The earliest American immigrants came on the mayflower? Really Florio? You’re an idiot!

By: skaybaltimore

skaybaltimore — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:31:01 +0000

RiskyDave definitely knows what he’s talking about. It makes total sense. What the NFL is suggesting does NOT make sense. How about RiskyDave for NFL commish?
;0)))

By: theravenlives2

theravenlives2 — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:27:32 +0000

I think they should make the Redskins the new English team. That way, Dan Snyder can sign David Beckham to play tight end. hey, he’s washed up, but he has some fan recognition and somethings with Danny Boy never change!
Just think of the possibilities. I can hear it now with the British announcers…”what a smashing tackle by Mr. Haynesworth. He might give a better go of it if he laid off the fish and chips, though!”

By: Markus2112

Markus2112 — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:25:50 +0000

Goodell needs to give this up, or he’s just trying to use it for a bargaining chip with the players union. This commish doesn’t have a clue!

By: winkel33

winkel33 — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:25:23 +0000

What happens when a team from the NFC/AFC west has to make it over to England? It just will never end I guess the lengths those who run the sport will be willing to hurt the competition all in an attempt to make more money.
And here is something else – maybe England will come around on football. But just because they turn out for one game a year, doesn’t mean there will ever be a consistent fan base. Reportedly, the league cherry picked the information they wanted from last year’s game to show there was interest, when in fact, the interest was at best, lukewarm. For decades now, soccer has been shoved down our throats here in the US. And while for some games, there will be crowds – we as a country still have not really taken to the sport. Are we in turn going to do the same thing to England with football?

By: Yak

Yak — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:20:57 +0000

Keep the NFL in the USA!!! Stop sending out regular season games over there. If I lost a home game to that I would be super pissed off!! Send the fake (preseason) games over. The Europeans won’t care if the game matters anyways!!

By: bh103

bh103 — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:20:27 +0000

mrzazz41387 says:
March 29, 2010 9:04 AM
Does anyone else see the competitive disadvantage, to having a team in England. People already claim the hike over to the west coast is hard, never mind a flight to England.
Most people here are shortsighted. They can’t see the numerous disadvantages.

By: DrakeDB

DrakeDB — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:13:47 +0000

A franchise in Britain would be too dumb for words. The competitive disadvantage would be enormous in terms of attracting free agents and top-notch coaches.
Players would be in a constant state of jet-lag, unless the team would be the only NFL squad to go on extended road trips like baseball.
UK weather in the fall is generally dismal.
Maybe someone ought to drug-test NFL headquarters.

By: BigBlueDeadHead

BigBlueDeadHead — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:11:53 +0000

Why don;t they just keep their ‘football’ there and we keep ours here, OK?

By: Jungle Juice

Jungle Juice — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:11:40 +0000

The London Jaguars would have a nice ring to it especially with a British accent.
Oh and there were the early Asians, who became Native Americans, and then the Vikings who were immigrants before the English.

By: DrakeDB

DrakeDB — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:11:34 +0000

By: DC_Bengals_Fan

DC_Bengals_Fan — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:09:51 +0000

NFL has enough problems now with their operations in America. There’s no way they can do this without losing American fans, and there’s no way that a team in England will ever be viable.
Under Goodell’s leadership, I fear that the NFL’s days as the best-run American sport are nearing their end.
At most I might buy a team in Toronto or Mexico City, since they’re closer and the time zones overlap America. But I think the better bet would be to simply work on making the game better in America – which means making the games more fun, and hopefully more affordable, to attend.

By: DaMayan

DaMayan — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:07:21 +0000

Well at least then the “World Championship” title would have some merrit.

By: TFBuckFutter

TFBuckFutter — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:01:08 +0000

I’m curious if anyone else knows that for the teams designated as “Home” in the overseas games….that team’s season ticket holders still have to pay for the tickets for that game.
And if they choose to travel to foreign soil to watch it….they have to BUY ANOTHER TICKET.
That has to be one of the biggest ripoffs of a league notorious for it.

By: RiskyDave

RiskyDave — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:00:42 +0000

As a UK NFL fan I can tell you that there is actually a lot of debate here about a UK-based team. This is not because football does not have a strong following (though it is very definitely a minority sport), but because of a variety of other factors, including:
1) There is now no longer any free TV coverage on a regular basis – it is all through pay channels which is still mionority viewing here. This makes it difficult to develop understanding of and support for the NFL product;
2) The practical logistics of flying a team between the US and the UK on a regular basis are immense (though not insurmountable). This makes building “home” team support very difficult (and I’d hate to think what the carbon footpriont would be. Don’t think that this is some eco-friendly rubbish – the green question is probably more important in Europe than it is in the US and is taken VERY seriously);
3) Yes we can fill Wembly with 80-90,000 once or twice per year and it is a great event (I go every year and love it), but many of the crowd are travelling the length of the country at great cost. Spending the equivalent of $400-500 per game is just not practical on a regular basis for most people and London is not necessarily the best place to host a team.
4) The NFL is quintisentially American. This is a huge part of the appeal to us! Somehow, internationalising it feels like it lessens the product (to me, at least);
5) There is little understanding of the game outside of its existing fans. It would be much like us Brits trying to develop a strong cricket presence in the US (go and Google the sport if you haven’t heard of it). There is often a (misguided) comparison in the UK between NFL and rugby – this seems to based on the similarity of the shape of the football and not much else, but it is a factor and causes anti-NFL bias in “neutrals”;
6) Soccer is absolutely the number 1 sport in this country (can’t stand it myself – full of prima donnas lol), is very well financed, supported and covered in the media and embedded down to the very lowest levels of our society. Trying to take market share from this is immensely difficult (other sports are also trying – and failing!).
In summary, there is a relatively small but very loyal and knowledgable audience in the UK for the NFL product. Fan attendance from other European countries would be minimal (travel is still relatively expensive by comparison with internal travel in the US) and therefore the NFL would have to build a UK fanbase. Make no mistake that there is some desire amongst NFL UK fans for a team, but it is by no means unanimous. If the NFL wants to expand into this market (and it appears that it does) then the very first thing that needs to be done is to broaden the free-to-air TV coverage in some way.
BTW, the question of overseas ownership of teams does not seem to be a huge issue for UK sports fans. We have the Glazers owning one of the most recognised sports franchises in the world with Manchester United, but other top teams are also owned by Russians (Chelsea) and Arabs (Manchester City) for example.
Anyway, though this might bring a UK perspective to the discussion.

By: Markus2112

Markus2112 — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:00:30 +0000

The Bucs are rebuilding and when they are competitive fans will be back so stick England up your bung hole Flo- rio

By: Brewster

Brewster — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:59:42 +0000

“[What] we learned in the U.K. and Mexico and Canada is ultimately you get fans, and to develop that into avid fans . . . they have to have a team to root for, a team to love, the way you do that is to have enough games so one team can come back on a regular basis,” NFL chief marketing officer Mark Waller told Kaplan. “If you only have one game and different teams every year, it’s not enough.”
______________________
This is an admission, a blinding flash of the obvious, that once again the NFL’s experiment into foreign countries is not working. The annual games they’ve been trumping as a success are not exactly up to the necessary level of fan support to house a permanent team. So they want to place a team there permanently and build a fan base.
And you wonder why ticket prices to NFL games are so high. It’s to support misguided attempts at expanding the fan base in new markets while ignoring the fan base in existing markets.
Spend away suckers support your favorite NFL team and watch your hard earned dollars go abroad.

By: WarrenMoonGOAT

WarrenMoonGOAT — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:53:25 +0000

why was my comment not posted? it wasn’t even a crack on your wife this time Florio

By: Marv_Sleezy

Marv_Sleezy — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:49:47 +0000

They should have the Patriots play in England. They could be called the Expatriots.
That said, playing en England just isnt sustainable unless its less than a 4 hour flight. Why did they get rid of the concord?

By: jd

jd — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:49:47 +0000

London Patriots!
Brixton Redskins!