PDA

View Full Version : 3 NFL Games in London in 2014?


GlassHalfFull
10-24-2013, 03:36 PM
Am I reading this article correctly? Are there really going to be 3 NFL games in London next season? Yikes, that seems a bit overboard. I am opposed to the concept of having a team based there, but this seems to be where we are heading.

Dallas, Detroit, Miami to play NFL London in 2014 (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/dallas-detroit-miami-play-nfl-184112777--nfl.html)

LONDON (AP) -- The Dallas Cowboys, Detroit Lions and Miami Dolphins will travel to London next year to take part in the NFL International Series, the league announced Thursday.

The NFL will hold three games at Wembley Stadium in 2014, with the Jacksonville Jaguars, Atlanta Falcons and Oakland Raiders as the designated home teams.

The lineup: Cowboys vs. Jaguars, Lions vs. Falcons, and Dolphins vs. Raiders.

TheIronDuke
10-24-2013, 03:59 PM
I thought the hags had 2 home games to play at their "home" in London.

infantrycak
10-24-2013, 04:11 PM
I thought the hags had 2 home games to play at their "home" in London.

1 for each of the next four seasons.

Dutchrudder
10-24-2013, 04:14 PM
Eventually, I think we will see the Jaguars moved to London. Khan, the owner of the Jags, is also the owner of the EPL team Fulham. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see them move there and share that stadium until they can build a new one to be split between the two.

Thorn
10-24-2013, 07:02 PM
meh.....bah humbug

houstonspartan
10-24-2013, 09:40 PM
Eventually, I think we will see the Jaguars moved to London. Khan, the owner of the Jags, is also the owner of the EPL team Fulham. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see them move there and share that stadium until they can build a new one to be split between the two.

And which teams are going to agree to send their players on a 15-hour round trip flight to play them? The Texans, Titans nor the Colts likely won't.

These games are a cute novelty and all, but, the logistics of a team in London are not there.

Hervoyel
10-24-2013, 09:41 PM
Hate it. Nothing further to say.

Wolf
10-24-2013, 09:46 PM
I don't know why but when I hear London, I get bored

gwallaia
10-24-2013, 11:07 PM
Hopefully the Texans will never be penalized with a game in London.

chicagotexan2
10-24-2013, 11:31 PM
Hate it. Nothing further to say.

Me too. Europe doesn't follow the nfl. If they are hard up for an international team then send a team to Mexico City or Toronto/Vancouver/Montreal.

Dutchrudder
10-24-2013, 11:51 PM
And which teams are going to agree to send their players on a 15-hour round trip flight to play them? The Texans, Titans nor the Colts likely won't.

These games are a cute novelty and all, but, the logistics of a team in London are not there.

I think there are 29 other teams in the league that will have a vote on that. It might not be ideal for those in their division, but for the league itself, it will mean more revenue. Certainly a lot more than what Jacksonville has ever been worth.

infantrycak
10-25-2013, 12:01 AM
Hopefully the Texans will never be penalized with a game in London.

They are attempting to avoid any divisional games.

Me too. Europe doesn't follow the nfl. If they are hard up for an international team then send a team to Mexico City or Toronto/Vancouver/Montreal.

Yup. Mexico City makes 10X more sense. Huge population. Existing large venues and more to the point an existing American football interest. They have a professional league in Mexico now.

Dan B.
10-25-2013, 01:09 AM
I think the travel thing is seriously overblown. There are five time zones between New York and London -- compared to three between New York and LA. It's an 11 hour round trip flight from New York to San Diego but no one screams that players won't be able to make the flight. They play one game a week for crying out loud. Just have a permanent practice camp for visiting teams and fly them into or out of England on Tuesday or something. I find it hard to believe that athletes in their 20s can't handle the strain of a five hour time change 8 times a year after four days to adjust. Musicians, Actors, and other entertainers can handle it. Other athletes can handle it. Businessmen and politicians can handle it.

disaacks3
10-25-2013, 10:54 AM
I think the travel thing is seriously overblown. There are five time zones between New York and London -- compared to three between New York and LA. It's an 11 hour round trip flight from New York to San Diego but no one screams that players won't be able to make the flight. They play one game a week for crying out loud. Just have a permanent practice camp for visiting teams and fly them into or out of England on Tuesday or something. I find it hard to believe that athletes in their 20s can't handle the strain of a five hour time change 8 times a year after four days to adjust. Musicians, Actors, and other entertainers can handle it. Other athletes can handle it. Businessmen and politicians can handle it.

It's not that they can't handle it, but it sure puts you at a competitive disadvantage against teams in your division who didn't have to travel.

paycheck71
10-25-2013, 12:55 PM
Eventually, I think we will see the Jaguars moved to London. Khan, the owner of the Jags, is also the owner of the EPL team Fulham. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see them move there and share that stadium until they can build a new one to be split between the two.

I think we are a loooong way away from having a team actually based in London. It's one thing to sell out 3 games with various opponents and having to sell out 8 of potentially crappy team + preseason. Playoffs shouldn't be a problem I'm assuming.

Also, I don't think Fulham and London Jags would ever be able to share a stadium. Fulham is a smaller club that probably wouldn't be able to draw over 40K fans for even the bigger matches (Fulham fans, don't kick me too hard, all I'm saying is that Fulham isn't Arsenal, MU, or even Tottenham). EPL clubs don't like to play in front of big half empty stadiums any more than the NFL does. And a 40K seat stadium is not enough for a successful NFL franchise. In addition to that, the field would not be able to recover from the football game to the next soccer game on a regular basis.

So, I think there are a lot of logistics to figure out just in London, that's before we get to schedule, travel, etc, etc. I'd say 10 years at the earliest for the possible move.

houstonspartan
10-25-2013, 01:36 PM
I think the travel thing is seriously overblown. There are five time zones between New York and London -- compared to three between New York and LA. It's an 11 hour round trip flight from New York to San Diego but no one screams that players won't be able to make the flight. They play one game a week for crying out loud. Just have a permanent practice camp for visiting teams and fly them into or out of England on Tuesday or something. I find it hard to believe that athletes in their 20s can't handle the strain of a five hour time change 8 times a year after four days to adjust. Musicians, Actors, and other entertainers can handle it. Other athletes can handle it. Businessmen and politicians can handle it.

Musicians and actors often travel several DAYS before a show. That gives them time to adjust. Businessmen also build in two or three days to adjust to jet lag.

Football players put their bodies on the line. This is a physical sport. Flying in and out of the United Kingdom is not going to work if you have to turn around, take ANOTHER long flight, and then get home, rest, and preparing for the following weeks game.

Also, because of the jet stream, flights FROM the Europe TO the United States are often a few hours long. Houston to Paris, for example, is 8 hours. Paris to Houston, by contrast, is 11 hours.

Also, regarding flying NY to San Diego: when you do that you are gaining 3 hours. And players aren't in San Diego long enough to adjust to the time difference, so jet lag is not as much a factor.

When you fly to Europe, however, you are losing 6 or 7 hours. That's why most flights to Europe leave the US at night: so they can arrive in England first thing in the morning (and, so they can allow US passengers to connect on later outbound flights).

A team in London will never happen.

houstonspartan
10-25-2013, 01:39 PM
I think there are 29 other teams in the league that will have a vote on that. It might not be ideal for those in their division, but for the league itself, it will mean more revenue. Certainly a lot more than what Jacksonville has ever been worth.

Bob McNair, Jim Isray and the next Titans own will not let that happen. Such a move would mean THEIR players and staff would have brutal travel schedules. Nope. Won't happen.

And: Jerry Jones is the Big Dog in the NFL. What he says goes. McNair is in good with Jones, and would simply tell Jerry to lobby against such a move.

paycheck71
10-25-2013, 02:06 PM
I think the travel thing is seriously overblown. There are five time zones between New York and London -- compared to three between New York and LA. It's an 11 hour round trip flight from New York to San Diego but no one screams that players won't be able to make the flight. They play one game a week for crying out loud. Just have a permanent practice camp for visiting teams and fly them into or out of England on Tuesday or something. I find it hard to believe that athletes in their 20s can't handle the strain of a five hour time change 8 times a year after four days to adjust. Musicians, Actors, and other entertainers can handle it. Other athletes can handle it. Businessmen and politicians can handle it.

I agree that the travel thing isn't a big deal. The game is still played at noon central time (I'm guessing that's the only acceptable time slot for games in London). If you don't try to adjust to the local time, leave your body clock on your own time zone, then it's just like a noon game with a long flight.

Dan B.
10-25-2013, 02:32 PM
Musicians and actors often travel several DAYS before a show. That gives them time to adjust. Businessmen also build in two or three days to adjust to jet lag.

Football players put their bodies on the line. This is a physical sport. Flying in and out of the United Kingdom is not going to work if you have to turn around, take ANOTHER long flight, and then get home, rest, and preparing for the following weeks game.

Also, because of the jet stream, flights FROM the Europe TO the United States are often a few hours long. Houston to Paris, for example, is 8 hours. Paris to Houston, by contrast, is 11 hours.

Also, regarding flying NY to San Diego: when you do that you are gaining 3 hours. And players aren't in San Diego long enough to adjust to the time difference, so jet lag is not as much a factor.

When you fly to Europe, however, you are losing 6 or 7 hours. That's why most flights to Europe leave the US at night: so they can arrive in England first thing in the morning (and, so they can allow US passengers to connect on later outbound flights).

A team in London will never happen.

Umm football players would travel several days before a game too. Eight times a year. Maybe 32 or 40 nights in a hotel room a year -- depending on whether they spend four or five nights per game on the road as the visiting team. The horror!

They said the same thing about MLB on the West Coast in the 50's. It was unreasonable because teams couldn't travel cross country for games. A train ride in 1957 from Philadelphia to San Francisco was a hell of a lot longer and less comfortable than a plane ride across the Atlantic today.

Dan B.
10-25-2013, 02:39 PM
It's not that they can't handle it, but it sure puts you at a competitive disadvantage against teams in your division who didn't have to travel.

But you also gain a home field advantage when teams travel to you.

What the heck is wrong with having a home field advantage anyway?

StarStruck
10-25-2013, 04:02 PM
I recall that when the Vikings played a few weeks ago, their next week was a bye. I didn't look up the team that they played to see if that was the case with them as well.

I look at the teams playing in another country as marketing a quality product. If players began to show concern about the schedule, I will rethink my opinon.

JCTexan
10-25-2013, 04:25 PM
I recall that when the Vikings played a few weeks ago, their next week was a bye. I didn't look up the team that they played to see if that was the case with them as well.

I look at the teams playing in another country as marketing a quality product. If players began to show concern about the schedule, I will rethink my opinon.

The team they played was Pittsburgh and they also were on a bye the following week. The two teams that play in London this week (SF/Jac) have byes next week.

Wolf
10-25-2013, 04:30 PM
Curious why the nfl is pushing this.cheaper to play there than LA? Stadium hold more people in london than LA.
Also not sure about the dollar to pounds conversion rate

Just throwing out la. It could be mexico city (security be ok there)

Canada? Piss off their league play?

2012Champs
10-25-2013, 04:38 PM
Musicians and actors often travel several DAYS before a show. That gives them time to adjust. Businessmen also build in two or three days to adjust to jet lag.

Football players put their bodies on the line. This is a physical sport. Flying in and out of the United Kingdom is not going to work if you have to turn around, take ANOTHER long flight, and then get home, rest, and preparing for the following weeks game.

Also, because of the jet stream, flights FROM the Europe TO the United States are often a few hours long. Houston to Paris, for example, is 8 hours. Paris to Houston, by contrast, is 11 hours.

Also, regarding flying NY to San Diego: when you do that you are gaining 3 hours. And players aren't in San Diego long enough to adjust to the time difference, so jet lag is not as much a factor.

When you fly to Europe, however, you are losing 6 or 7 hours. That's why most flights to Europe leave the US at night: so they can arrive in England first thing in the morning (and, so they can allow US passengers to connect on later outbound flights).

A team in London will never happen.


There is not a 3 hour difference flying from Paris to houston vs houston to Paris. It's about 9 1/2 from houston to Paris and 10 3/4 from Paris. Let's not make up a 3 hour difference

Dutchrudder
10-25-2013, 05:07 PM
Bob McNair, Jim Isray and the next Titans own will not let that happen. Such a move would mean THEIR players and staff would have brutal travel schedules. Nope. Won't happen.

And: Jerry Jones is the Big Dog in the NFL. What he says goes. McNair is in good with Jones, and would simply tell Jerry to lobby against such a move.

One game a year in London for the division teams guaranteed. Then 5 other teams will also have to make the trip each year, and those teams will vary. It's really not that big of a deal.

Jacksonville is a ****ty city, with a ****ty following, ****ty revenue streams currently, and it's not going to improve any time soon. London is a brand new market, with millions of new fans, and it might entice the rest of the continent to start watching. That revenue alone would outweigh another failed LA team. I think Goodell wants to open up this market, and I think he wants this to be part of his legacy as commish. It makes a lot more sense than Canada or Mexico, the UK is much more lucrative.

Dan B.
10-25-2013, 05:17 PM
One game a year in London for the division teams guaranteed. Then 5 other teams will also have to make the trip each year, and those teams will vary. It's really not that big of a deal.

Jacksonville is a ****ty city, with a ****ty following, ****ty revenue streams currently, and it's not going to improve any time soon. London is a brand new market, with millions of new fans, and it might entice the rest of the continent to start watching. That revenue alone would outweigh another failed LA team. I think Goodell wants to open up this market, and I think he wants this to be part of his legacy as commish. It makes a lot more sense than Canada or Mexico, the UK is much more lucrative.

They also have a stadium in place in London. Toronto and Mexico City would have to build one. Rogers Centre is not large enough, and Azteca would easily be the worst stadium in the NFL if they put a team in Mexico.

Compared to LA I think a team in London has a better chance of being a regional team than a team in LA. A fourth team in California really only brings the LA market. London would bring all of the UK. Britain is small enough that fans could come from across the country for games.

infantrycak
10-25-2013, 05:37 PM
They also have a stadium in place in London. Toronto and Mexico City would have to build one. Rogers Centre is not large enough, and Azteca would easily be the worst stadium in the NFL if they put a team in Mexico.

Mexico City would not have to build a new stadium. They have a 105k stadium with almost 1000 suites. Renovations to that would be fine.

And frankly so what if it isn't typical US opulence? Only Canada of the options being discussed would draw a significant visiting fan population. It won't be a typical US audience.

I don't think London is insurmountable but I think you and Dutch are (a) being flippant about the travel inconvenience and (b) over estimating the interest/revenue in London. The only country which took to NFL Europe was Germany. In England American football is a novelty. In Mexico it has an enthusiastic audience.

houstonspartan
10-26-2013, 01:52 AM
There is not a 3 hour difference flying from Paris to houston vs houston to Paris. It's about 9 1/2 from houston to Paris and 10 3/4 from Paris. Let's not make up a 3 hour difference

I have done this trip twice. I know how long it takes.

houstonspartan
10-26-2013, 01:54 AM
One game a year in London for the division teams guaranteed. Then 5 other teams will also have to make the trip each year, and those teams will vary. It's really not that big of a deal.

Jacksonville is a ****ty city, with a ****ty following, ****ty revenue streams currently, and it's not going to improve any time soon. London is a brand new market, with millions of new fans, and it might entice the rest of the continent to start watching. That revenue alone would outweigh another failed LA team. I think Goodell wants to open up this market, and I think he wants this to be part of his legacy as commish. It makes a lot more sense than Canada or Mexico, the UK is much more lucrative.

Are you aware of how close Houston is to Mexico City? The flight down there from here is laughable. Hell, Denver, LA, San Diego, and other cities West of here would be even closer.

Mexico is a MUCH more viable market than the United Kingdom, financially and logistically.

Also: Goddell wants his legacy to be 1) Dealing with the concussion issue and player safety and 2) Getting a team in Los Angeles.

London is a novelty. Nothing more.

Dan B.
10-26-2013, 04:10 AM
Mexico City would not have to build a new stadium. They have a 105k stadium with almost 1000 suites. Renovations to that would be fine.

And frankly so what if it isn't typical US opulence? Only Canada of the options being discussed would draw a significant visiting fan population. It won't be a typical US audience.

I don't think London is insurmountable but I think you and Dutch are (a) being flippant about the travel inconvenience and (b) over estimating the interest/revenue in London. The only country which took to NFL Europe was Germany. In England American football is a novelty. In Mexico it has an enthusiastic audience.

I'm not opposed to games in Mexico or Germany, but I think you are underselling the UK. 1.3 million Brits watched the Super Bowl pregame show on BBC in 2011 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8505562.stm) despite it coming on at midnight (I can't find any reports for the game ratings themselves), compared to 1.23 million Germans who watched last year's game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XLVI#International_telecasts) (admittedly it aired even later there).


Let's keep things in perspective. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Football_League_games_played_outs ide_the_United_States) The NFL has played at least one game in London every year since 2007. They have played a total of 16 NFL games in London (seven regular season and nine preseason). Berlin has hosted four games, none since 1994. They played seven total games in Mexico - one was regular season (Tokyo has hosted nearly twice as many games) They haven't played a game in Mexico (or anywhere other than Canada or England) since 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/sports/football/hype-machine-in-overdrive-nfl-pops-back-to-london.html?pagewanted=2):

The N.F.L. also held a regular-season game in Mexico City in 2005 that drew more than 103,000 fans to Estadio Azteca, but the league has not returned, reportedly because the stadium is considered inadequate.

Azteca doesn't come anywhere close to Wembley, the host Stadium of the 2012 Olympics. Roger Goodell has openly discussed hosting the Super Bowl in London..They have already tried to become a permanent tenant at Wembley once (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2232806/Olympic-Stadium-latest-NFL-bid-thrown-out.html). I don't think it's flippant or over estimating in the least to say the NFL considers London a far more attractive candidate (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason-la-canfora/20724077/nfls-move-to-london-could-come-soon-jags-a-target):

Eric Grubman, the league's Executive Vice President of Business Ventures, addressed the teams as part of the International Committee presentation at the meeting less than two weeks ago, and spoke in certain terms about the desire to have a team in London, sources said, with numerous attendees leaving the meeting with the impression this initiative will result in a team moving to London more quickly than owners had previously imagined.

“Grubman pretty much flat-out said, ‘We want to have a team in London -- our goal is to get a team there and make this happen,'” said one source who was present for the meeting. “It didn't sound like an if, we took it as a when.”

Said another source at the meeting: “I don't even know why they call it the International Committee. They should just call it the London Committee. It's pretty obvious everything is geared to the U.K. and, really, Wembley Stadium. I left that meeting thinking this isn't 20 years away, this is happening in five to 10 years. The league is really behind this.”

Wolf
10-26-2013, 10:12 AM
Ashling O’Connor: Over-hyped and over here - why NFL’s invasion is a cover-up for a cry for help (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/others/ashling-oconnor-overhyped-and-over-here--why-nfls-invasion-is-a-coverup-for-a-cry-for-help-8845326.html)

2012Champs
10-26-2013, 11:57 AM
I have done this trip twice. I know how long it takes.

You must have flown different aircraft on each leg. There isn't a 3 hour difference no matter how many times you've said you've done it

infantrycak
10-26-2013, 12:15 PM
Good lord, why argue over something so easy to look up?

United Airlines non-stop"
Intercontinental to Heathrow 9 hours 25 min.
Heathrow to Intercontinental 10 hours 45 min.
So 1 hour 20 min. longer to US.

Dan B.
10-26-2013, 12:19 PM
Ashling O’Connor: Over-hyped and over here - why NFL’s invasion is a cover-up for a cry for help (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/others/ashling-oconnor-overhyped-and-over-here--why-nfls-invasion-is-a-coverup-for-a-cry-for-help-8845326.html)

The Super Bowl attracted 4.3m across the BBC and Sky. Compare that with the 2010 World Cup final, which was watched by 24m people in the US.

I saw that 4m figure from the NFL somewhere last night but I didn't cite it because that seemed too high. That would mean 7% of the country stayed up to watch a game in the dead of night in Great Britain, compared to 7.5% of the US that watched the World Cup (btw held quadrennially not annually) at 2:30 EST in the US.

2012Champs
10-26-2013, 12:21 PM
Good lord, why argue over something so easy to look up?

United Airlines non-stop"
Intercontinental to Heathrow 9 hours 25 min.
Heathrow to Intercontinental 10 hours 45 min.
So 1 hour 20 min. longer to US.


I looked it up before I posted the first time to verify but when I went to turkey earlier this year is was an hour and change longer on the way back so I knew 3 was well off

Speedy
10-26-2013, 02:56 PM
If the Jags moved to London, you can't keep them in a South division any more, right? I mean, London is further north than every Canadian team but one. Move them to the AFC East and Miami to the AFC South. Those AFC East teams (Buf, NYJ, NE) are a couple of hours closer and the Texans wouldn't have to make that trip every year.

Wolf
10-26-2013, 03:44 PM
Think I read somewhere that roger is hell bent on LA and or London

Kinda not an If but a when ..tone

gtexan02
10-26-2013, 03:56 PM
It will happen eventually whether we like it or not

London has sold our every game. Mexico City isn't even a consideration so I don't know why anyone's even talking about it


Nfl Europe is meaningless. Of course no one cared about it. How many of you watch the mlb minor league games? I wouldn't watch an nfl Europe team if they were the only teams I had access to either. Inferior played, limited marketing, poor play, very low stakes.

ChampionTexan
10-26-2013, 03:57 PM
Think I read somewhere that roger is hell bent on LA and or London

Kinda not an If but a when ..tone

It could've been this article posted earlier today on PFT.

With the NFL eyeballing a return to Los Angeles and expansion to London, Commissioner Roger Goodell addressed for the first time his preferred pecking order.

“I want both, but it doesn’t matter which one is first,” Goodell told a forum of European NFL fans, via Bill Williamson of ESPN.com.

LINK (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/10/26/goodell-wants-a-team-in-both-l-a-and-london/)

ChampionTexan
10-26-2013, 04:08 PM
If the Jags moved to London, you can't keep them in a South division any more, right? I mean, London is further north than every Canadian team but one. Move them to the AFC East and Miami to the AFC South. Those AFC East teams (Buf, NYJ, NE) are a couple of hours closer and the Texans wouldn't have to make that trip every year.

If it happens, I wouldn't count on anything. The Cardinals existed in the NFC East from 1988 (The year they relocated to Arizona) until 2002 even though there was only one team in the entire NFC that was further west than they were.

The NFL's hand was finally forced when on the heels of the Ravens/Browns addition, the creation of the Texans made a two conference/six division league no longer feasible.

Who knows what would actually happen, but to say a relocated Jaguar franchise would absolutely have to result in a re-allignment (even a minor one) probably isn't the case.

infantrycak
10-26-2013, 04:57 PM
London has sold our every game.

Nfl Europe is meaningless. Of course no one cared about it. How many of you watch the mlb minor league games? I wouldn't watch an nfl Europe team if they were the only teams I had access to either. Inferior played, limited marketing, poor play, very low stakes.

Your logic is backwards. The current London games are almost meaningless. It is a novelty. You could sell out 1 game a year in El Paso. Doesn't mean it will support a team.

NFL Europe on the other hand is very relevant to interest level. Same players, same marketing, same play the Germans were interested and the English were not. That's what all these games are about - trying to build an interest where little exists.

houstonspartan
10-26-2013, 05:02 PM
It will happen eventually whether we like it or not

London has sold our every game. Mexico City isn't even a consideration so I don't know why anyone's even talking about it


Nfl Europe is meaningless. Of course no one cared about it. How many of you watch the mlb minor league games? I wouldn't watch an nfl Europe team if they were the only teams I had access to either. Inferior played, limited marketing, poor play, very low stakes.

People are talking about Mexico City because Mexico City is an extremely short flight. It's do-able.

The NFL can "talk" London all they want, but, that's just to sell tickets in the moment and build excitement.

I haven't even talked about the expense to fly a jumbo jet across the Atlantic, whether or not London-based NFL players will be paid in British Pounds or US dollars and how that conversion rate would essentially double NFL player salaries under the next Collective Bargaining Agreement, whether or not the London-based team staff would be subject to US taxes, whether they will be subject to European Union labor and employment laws...and a zillion other logistical issues that make a team in London a non-starter.

The NFL will never have a team in London.

Dan B.
10-26-2013, 05:10 PM
Your logic is backwards. The current London games are almost meaningless. It is a novelty. You could sell out 1 game a year in El Paso. Doesn't mean it will support a team.

NFL Europe on the other hand is very relevant to interest level. Same players, same marketing, same play the Germans were interested and the English were not.

It's an indicator but certainly not the sole factor. Should we assume that the NFL would fail in Birmingham or San Antonio because their WLAF teams drew poorly? (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19910609&slug=1287927)

TEAM ATTENDANCE

London 40,481; New York-New Jersey 32,380; Montreal 31,882; Frankfurt 29,856; Barcelona 29,002; Birmingham 25,500; Orlando 19,537; Sacramento 17,994; San Antonio 14,853; Raleigh-Durham 12,066;

SOURCE: WLAF

I think games would do very well in Germany, but that doesn't mean that London is a sham. The NFL has come a long way in a very short time there.

gtexan02
10-26-2013, 06:47 PM
Your logic is backwards. The current London games are almost meaningless. It is a novelty. You could sell out 1 game a year in El Paso. Doesn't mean it will support a team.

NFL Europe on the other hand is very relevant to interest level. Same players, same marketing, same play the Germans were interested and the English were not. That's what all these games are about - trying to build an interest where little exists.

Nfl Europe players were meaningless games with basically garbage players on teams with zero history playing against equally meaningless franchises.
You can't compare interest in that with the draw of the packers in London to play against whatever team ends up there.

Like I said, I would never pay to see the nfl Europe players on an nfl Europe team. Even when I lived in a state with no nfl team, it wouldn't have interested me. It's comparing apples and oranges. It's the same reason I don't care about arena football. But you wouldn't judge a city's ability to support a franchise by how popular their novelty leagues are

2012Champs
10-26-2013, 07:56 PM
People are talking about Mexico City because Mexico City is an extremely short flight. It's do-able.

The NFL can "talk" London all they want, but, that's just to sell tickets in the moment and build excitement.

I haven't even talked about the expense to fly a jumbo jet across the Atlantic, whether or not London-based NFL players will be paid in British Pounds or US dollars and how that conversion rate would essentially double NFL player salaries under the next Collective Bargaining Agreement, whether or not the London-based team staff would be subject to US taxes, whether they will be subject to European Union labor and employment laws...and a zillion other logistical issues that make a team in London a non-starter.

The NFL will never have a team in London.



The currency would be a non issue. Either your contract is in usd, eur or gbp and that's how you get paid no matter where you play. The cost of the jumbo jet wouldn't be an issue either. You are making up a handful of things that aren't actual issues

houstonspartan
10-27-2013, 11:57 AM
The currency would be a non issue. Either your contract is in usd, eur or gbp and that's how you get paid no matter where you play. The cost of the jumbo jet wouldn't be an issue either. You are making up a handful of things that aren't actual issues

The currency isn't an issue? The exchange rate with the British Pound is leveraged towards the British Pound. And has been for a long time. If we pay London-based players in British Pounds, they'd be making much more than American-based players. Do you really think the players Union would be ok with that?

If you pay London-based players in American dollars, that would be an issue as well, because the cost of living in London is so high that you'd have to pay them well above what NFL players in other markets are making.

Hauling a massive jumbo jet across the Atlantic isn't an issue? Are you kidding me? You think it's free to run those big jets across the pond? The owners will have to spend massive more amount of money on travel than they already do.

I am not making things up. These are all, real-world, legit issues. You are being obtuse.

TexanSam
10-27-2013, 12:12 PM
Hauling a massive jumbo jet across the Atlantic isn't an issue? Are you kidding me? You think it's free to run those big jets across the pond? The owners will have to spend massive more amount of money on travel than they already do.


Bring back the Concorde!

Dan B.
10-27-2013, 12:26 PM
Lolz at guys making millions not being able to afford living in London. Okay Latrell Sprewell. How can anyone afford it on 500k a year? We'll have to rewrite the rookie pay scale and eliminate the salary cap so their players can eat!

The cost of living in London is relatively close to living in New York or San Francisco. Do we have to pay guys more to play for the Giants than the Packers?

http://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/index

houstonspartan
10-27-2013, 12:36 PM
Lolz at guys making millions not being able to afford living in London. The cost of living in London is relatively close to living in New York or San Francisco. Do we have to pay guys more to play for the Giants than the Packers?

http://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/index

Ah, I knew that one was coming. Understand that it's about the exchange rate, and international tax laws. The American dollar does not go far in London. So, if you pay players in British Pounds, that's good, but, that's kind of screwing US-based players. Yes, we would likely have to pay players living in London more money.

Anyway, this conversation is getting superflous, and none of us will agree. Understand that I'm not saying it's IMPOSSIBLE to have a team in London; it is possible. I just think the logistics - combined with the cheapness of the owners - make is more complicated than most of us realize.

Dan B.
10-27-2013, 12:40 PM
Ah, I knew that one was coming. Understand that it's about the exchange rate, and international tax laws. The American dollar does not go far in London. So, if you pay players in British Pounds, that's good, but, that's kind of screwing US-based players. Yes, we would likely have to pay players living in London more money.

Anyway, this conversation is getting superflous, and none of us will agree. Understand that I'm not saying it's IMPOSSIBLE to have a team in London; it is possible. I just think the logistics - combined with the cheapness of the owners - make is more complicated than most of us realize.

Dude I was in London last summer. My dollar did fine. 50 pounds a night for a decent hotel near Kensington. Beer was 2 pounds or so on average. Fast food was 3 or 4 pounds -- a decent dinner was 10 to 20. The pound was trading at 1 to 1.6 or so, so add 50% and you can see exactly how far my dollar went.

France cost me much more.

500,000 dollars a year (the minimum for a guy with 1 year's experience) equates to 310,000 pounds. Seriously, you don't think they can live on that? You think they need a subsidy?

Not to mention that we'd have to deal with the exchange rate and international tax laws if we expand to Mexico too. I'm pretty sure that players AND owners would rather tie their dollars to the pound than the peso. It's a helluva lot more stable for starters.

2012Champs
10-27-2013, 12:52 PM
The currency isn't an issue? The exchange rate with the British Pound is leveraged towards the British Pound. And has been for a long time. If we pay London-based players in British Pounds, they'd be making much more than American-based players. Do you really think the players Union would be ok with that?

If you pay London-based players in American dollars, that would be an issue as well, because the cost of living in London is so high that you'd have to pay them well above what NFL players in other markets are making.

Hauling a massive jumbo jet across the Atlantic isn't an issue? Are you kidding me? You think it's free to run those big jets across the pond? The owners will have to spend massive more amount of money on travel than they already do.

I am not making things up. These are all, real-world, legit issues. You are being obtuse.



You must not work in the real world because simple business concepts seem to escape you.

Let's say a top flight qb makes 20 million usd a year and it takes 1.50 to purchase 1 gbp well the top flight qb on the London based team would make 13.33 million gbp a year instead. It's very simple math to take care of the conversion. All US based players could still be paid USD, for that matter so could the London based players and no you wouldn't have to make any absurd adjustments for cost of living, is the salary cap adjusted across the US? Nope. I can request my employer pay me in one of about 20 currencies no matter where I work or live.


There is an expense with the flight however is not prohibitive to keep this from happening and certainly something a London based owner would know going in to this

There is also not a magical 3 hour flight difference on the return flight

houstonspartan
10-27-2013, 05:24 PM
You must not work in the real world because simple business concepts seem to escape you.

Let's say a top flight qb makes 20 million usd a year and it takes 1.50 to purchase 1 gbp well the top flight qb on the London based team would make 13.33 million gbp a year instead. It's very simple math to take care of the conversion. All US based players could still be paid USD, for that matter so could the London based players and no you wouldn't have to make any absurd adjustments for cost of living, is the salary cap adjusted across the US? Nope. I can request my employer pay me in one of about 20 currencies no matter where I work or live.


There is an expense with the flight however is not prohibitive to keep this from happening and certainly something a London based owner would know going in to this

There is also not a magical 3 hour flight difference on the return flight

Actually, I work in Houston for a London-based company. I know about business.

Anyway, as I said, we will have to agree to disagree. I'm done with this conversation.

A London team will not happen.

houstonspartan
10-27-2013, 05:30 PM
Dude I was in London last summer. My dollar did fine. 50 pounds a night for a decent hotel near Kensington. Beer was 2 pounds or so on average. Fast food was 3 or 4 pounds -- a decent dinner was 10 to 20. The pound was trading at 1 to 1.6 or so, so add 50% and you can see exactly how far my dollar went.

France cost me much more.

500,000 dollars a year (the minimum for a guy with 1 year's experience) equates to 310,000 pounds. Seriously, you don't think they can live on that? You think they need a subsidy?

Not to mention that we'd have to deal with the exchange rate and international tax laws if we expand to Mexico too. I'm pretty sure that players AND owners would rather tie their dollars to the pound than the peso. It's a helluva lot more stable for starters.

Good grief.

You do realize that the exchange rate with Mexico favors the US dollar MUCH more than it does with the UK pound, no?

And, again: flying to Mexico is nothing compared to flying to London. Which dramatically negates the travel costs.

As I said, this conversation is going no where. Some of us just won't agree.

And, regardless of what people are finding as they rush to airline web sites to look up flight times to and from Europe, I have done that trip several times. Coming back from Europe is pretty much 3 hours longer - to Houston - than going over. That's been my experience, anyway.

Anyway, as I said, we will all agree to disagree...

Dan B.
10-27-2013, 06:03 PM
Good grief.

You do realize that the exchange rate with Mexico favors the US dollar MUCH more than it does with the UK pound, no?

And, again: flying to Mexico is nothing compared to flying to London. Which dramatically negates the travel costs.

As I said, this conversation is going no where. Some of us just won't agree.

And, regardless of what people are finding as they rush to airline web sites to look up flight times to and from Europe, I have done that trip several times. Coming back from Europe is pretty much 3 hours longer - to Houston - than going over. That's been my experience, anyway.

Anyway, as I said, we will all agree to disagree...

hey you know the dollar is even stronger against the Columbian peso. Maybe they should put a team in Bogota.

Corrupt Federales shot up the airport (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/08/20/mexico-city-airport-replaces-entire-security-team-after-shooting/) a week after the last time I flew out of Benito Juarez. Maybe it's not "nothing" compared to a flight to London after all?

houstonspartan
10-27-2013, 07:08 PM
hey you know the dollar is even stronger against the Columbian peso. Maybe they should put a team in Bogota.

Corrupt Federales shot up the airport (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/08/20/mexico-city-airport-replaces-entire-security-team-after-shooting/) a week after the last time I flew out of Benito Juarez. Maybe it's not "nothing" compared to a flight to London after all?

LOL!

You know, I never really "got" the concept of a Straw Man argument until now.

Thanks for clarifying that for me.

Unbelievable.

paycheck71
10-27-2013, 07:27 PM
This is interesting. It would give London 8 games per season without a team...

Peter King @SI_PeterKing
NFL considering many London options. Reported on #NBCSNF that one option is lg playing 8-game package w/all teams rotating regularly.

2012Champs
10-27-2013, 08:06 PM
Actually, I work in Houston for a London-based company. I know about business.

Anyway, as I said, we will have to agree to disagree. I'm done with this conversation.

A London team will not happen.


No clearly you don't understand business because currency differences aren't an issue and you continue to show how ignorant you are on the topic. You work for a London based company in the US? Do you get paid in gbp? If not I can't understand how your company figured it out and the nfl cant


The added cost for longer flights will be something a London based owner could easily absorb without impacting the finances of a team to keep this from happening

Of course we can agree to disagree on a fake 3 hour travel time difference

2012Champs
10-27-2013, 08:09 PM
Good grief.

You do realize that the exchange rate with Mexico favors the US dollar MUCH more than it does with the UK pound, no?

And, again: flying to Mexico is nothing compared to flying to London. Which dramatically negates the travel costs.

As I said, this conversation is going no where. Some of us just won't agree.

And, regardless of what people are finding as they rush to airline web sites to look up flight times to and from Europe, I have done that trip several times. Coming back from Europe is pretty much 3 hours longer - to Houston - than going over. That's been my experience, anyway.

Anyway, as I said, we will all agree to disagree...

It is not 3 hours longer. Christ look it up its a hour to hour and a half. You can't start saying "agree to disagree" when you are factually wrong an there is no retort you can make

Dan B.
10-27-2013, 08:34 PM
LOL!

You know, I never really "got" the concept of a Straw Man argument until now.

Thanks for clarifying that for me.

Unbelievable.

You still don't get the concept.

You are arguing that since "the exchange rate with Mexico favors the US dollar MUCH more than it does with the UK pound," it means Mexico is a better candidate, are you not? If you aren't saying that what the heck are you pointing it out for? And I'm saying in response that the primary consideration isn't just where the exchange rate favors us -- if it were there are a lot of other candidates too. Player safety matters. The purchasing power of the fans in the city or country they place the team matters.

Hypothetical question: If London and Mexico City both got a team and both offered Payton $20 million to play for them, do you think Peyton Manning would rather make $20 million to play in Mexico City or London?

Dan B.
10-27-2013, 08:46 PM
THE Big Mac index was invented by The Economist in 1986 as a lighthearted guide to whether currencies are at their “correct” level. It is based on the theory of purchasing-power parity (PPP), the notion that in the long run exchange rates should move towards the rate that would equalise the prices of an identical basket of goods and services (in this case, a burger) in any two countries. For example, the average price of a Big Mac in America in July 2013 was $4.56; in China it was only $2.61 at market exchange rates. So the "raw" Big Mac index says that the yuan was undervalued by 43% at that time.

Burgernomics was never intended as a precise gauge of currency misalignment, merely a tool to make exchange-rate theory more digestible. Yet the Big Mac index has become a global standard, included in several economic textbooks and the subject of at least 20 academic studies. For those who take their fast food more seriously, we have also calculated a gourmet version of the index.

This adjusted index addresses the criticism that you would expect average burger prices to be cheaper in poor countries than in rich ones because labour costs are lower. PPP signals where exchange rates should be heading in the long run, as a country like China gets richer, but it says little about today's equilibrium rate. The relationship between prices and GDP per person may be a better guide to the current fair value of a currency. The adjusted index uses the “line of best fit” between Big Mac prices and GDP per person for 48 countries (plus the euro area). The difference between the price predicted by the red line for each country, given its income per person, and its actual price gives a supersized measure of currency under- and over-valuation.

http://www.economist.com/content/big-mac-index

According to this index the dollar is currently undervalued against the pound by 11.8%, and against the peso by 37.3%. At least these economists (from The Economist Magazine) think the dollar's purchasing power isn't as bad in Britain as you claim.

BullBlitz
10-27-2013, 09:47 PM
Am I reading this article correctly? Are there really going to be 3 NFL games in London next season? Yikes, that seems a bit overboard. I am opposed to the concept of having a team based there, but this seems to be where we are heading.

Dallas, Detroit, Miami to play NFL London in 2014 (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/dallas-detroit-miami-play-nfl-184112777--nfl.html)

No NFL games, including even the Jaguars, should be wasted by playing in London.

2012Champs
10-28-2013, 10:26 AM
No NFL games, including even the Jaguars, should be wasted by playing in London.



If they were to get their own team and all visting teams got their bye week following the game I dont see what the issue is.

Dutchrudder
10-28-2013, 10:34 AM
If they were to get their own team and all visting teams got their bye week following the game I dont see what the issue is.

Why would they get a bye for playing in London? Teams don't even get a bye before playing a Thursday night game, which is waaaaaaaaaay more taxing on the players. Now if it were a Thursday night game in London, then the visiting team would need a bye prior to that game.

2012Champs
10-28-2013, 10:44 AM
Why would they get a bye for playing in London? Teams don't even get a bye before playing a Thursday night game, which is waaaaaaaaaay more taxing on the players. Now if it were a Thursday night game in London, then the visiting team would need a bye prior to that game.



The bye after the game would help offset the extended travel time. It certainly doesnt have to happen but I think it would be helpful