PDA

View Full Version : Kraft: "London ready for own NFL team"


Goldensilence
10-27-2012, 06:39 PM
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/8557623/robert-kraft-owner-new-england-patriots-says-london-ready-own-team

I think that's a pretty bold statement...who is going to want to make that flight? It would really put the team at a disadvantage.

I think the NFL would be better served to try to bring back NFL Europe than have a team based in London playing in the U.S.

rmartin65
10-27-2012, 06:44 PM
Ugh. The city very well may be, but the travel is ridiculous. I agree with the OP, bring back an NFL Europe-type league.

Vinny
10-27-2012, 06:58 PM
If we were on one of the coasts we would make this long a trip all the time when going to the other coast of the US> NY to London is shorter than NY to Seattle from what I gather. This London team thing is probably going to happen one day soon from the chatter I've seen. West coast teams won't like the trip much though.

GlassHalfFull
10-27-2012, 07:02 PM
Send the jags. They are playing 2 games a year there anyway. :kitten:

Khari
10-27-2012, 07:12 PM
boo @ overseas games

Wolf
10-27-2012, 07:18 PM
Agree with Khari

Stemp
10-27-2012, 07:26 PM
Agree with Khari

If the Concorde was still in service, it wouldn't be that bad.

welsh texan
10-27-2012, 07:29 PM
There are a myriad of reasons why NFL Europe failed. What it comes down to is that it wasn't a good standard. And it never will be.

Wembley sells out for the International Series every time its played, but really I'm unsure whether a London team would really work.

I'm not travelling to London for every home game, its a 12 hour round trip if you're lucky. I'm not changing teams from the Texans to a new team in London, although I'd likely get behind them to some extent.

When you are at the IS, every single NFL team is represented in the crowd, the vast majority of people have jersey's on etc so you can tell. But it's once, soon to be twice a year.

Also, Wembley isn't a great stadium to watch NFL in, and they won't be invited to host a team there anyway. Apart from possibly the Olympic stadium which a couple of soccer teams are after (which would be terrible for either sport) you try finding somewhere to build a stadium in London. Chelsea have lost out on Battersea, then after that its really hard to imagine where they are going to buy.

I just can't see it and I can't see it working out well long term if it does.

houstonspartan
10-27-2012, 07:37 PM
Every time I've gone to Europe, the flight and jet lag wore me OUT. After I arrived, I spent at least two days adjusting to the time change.

Maybe we're going to get all "Star Trek" in the near future, where we can teleport thousands of miles in three seconds; until then, there will never, ever, ever, be an NFL team in Europe.


I think the owners say that every time there's a game in London because they want to build support for the actual game. But, realistically, the NFL won't go to Europe. I can't see it.

Stemp
10-27-2012, 07:45 PM
Now that I think about it, if the team had facilities and another base of operations on the East Coast, it wouldn't be that bad. For weeks where their next game was in the US,they could stay on the East Coast. For home games, they stay in London. It could work :thinking:

steelbtexan
10-27-2012, 07:48 PM
boo @ overseas games

^^^^
This

This is just another thing that God'ell is ramming down that fans throat at the behest of Kraft,Mara,Rooney etc....

Wolf
10-27-2012, 07:52 PM
They would say goodbye to any Thursday games unless the team was coming off a bye week( visiting)

welsh texan
10-27-2012, 08:43 PM
They would say goodbye to any Thursday games unless the team was coming off a bye week( visiting)

They wouldn't want to play in 'Prime Time' anyway, when the Texans kick off at noon that's a 6pm start here, when they play late it's 9pm, when they play prime time we're talking 1 or 2 am on a work night.

So talk of the time-difference getting to people is somewhat silly I think. What time is the London game starting tomorrow? Pretty similar to the rest of the games I believe, the UK audience would prefer what you call noon games which would suit the NFL because the home audience always is in prime time, and the other team never have to adjust to local time.

The problems really don't lie in the logistics anywhere near as much as some people would like to think. There would be little to no issue with time difference, it would be fly in-fly out (possibly for both teams) without even noticing the time zone, the Texans played on Monday night in NYC, what time did they get back to Houston Airport? What time did they get home? Early hours of the morning? Not so early hours of the morning? An away team playing in London could fly back straight after the game and get back around 10-11pm quite comfortably.

Luv_ya_blue
10-27-2012, 09:00 PM
NY to London = 3465 miles

Seattle to NY = 2404 miles

Houston to London (fwiw) = 4854 miles

San Fran to London = 5360 miles

ChampionTexan
10-27-2012, 09:24 PM
NY to London = 3465 miles

Seattle to NY = 2404 miles

Houston to London (fwiw) = 4854 miles

San Fran to London = 5360 miles

There's also anywhere from a 5 to an 8 hour time difference (US locales and London), as opposed to a 3 hour time difference between Seattle and NY.

Hervoyel
10-27-2012, 09:25 PM
It is the National Football League. It's not the World Football League or the International Football League.

The day they put a team in London, or Mexico City, or Toronto is going to be a very bad day for NFL fans everywhere. How much do these *******s have to own? How much money is enough?

If they want a league in England start a damn league in England but don't cannibalize your league here to make it happen. I love football and I love NFL football but to be entirely honest there's not one single NFL owner (and this includes Bob McNair) that I don't deep down inside think is a money grubbing slug. It's just what they are. It's their nature. There's not enough money in the universe to fill the hole inside each of them. They have a very good thing going but they seem bound and determined to screw it up if they can find a way. Their biggest problem is simple greed but running a close second is this inability to grasp the concept that more football is not necessarily a good thing. They'll get it up to 20 games a year and have teams all around the world before I die I imagine and even then they'll be trying to break the hot dog vendors union over the price of mustard because they think they're paying too much.

houstonspartan
10-27-2012, 09:30 PM
Now that I think about it, if the team had facilities and another base of operations on the East Coast, it wouldn't be that bad. For weeks where their next game was in the US,they could stay on the East Coast. For home games, they stay in London. It could work :thinking:

No, it would not. Even from the East Coast, you're still looking at a 6 hour flight. That's on top of a time zone change of PLUS four hours, so you're losing four hours when you arrive in London. And that's just one way.

On the return trip, you're likely looking at 8 hours (because you're flying West, against the Earth's rotation). So, round trip, you're looking at roughly 14 hours on an airplane. Just to play a football game. Won't happen.

houstonspartan
10-27-2012, 09:32 PM
It is the National Football League. It's not the World Football League or the International Football League.

The day they put a team in London, or Mexico City, or Toronto is going to be a very bad day for NFL fans everywhere. How much do these *******s have to own? How much money is enough?

If they want a league in England start a damn league in England but don't cannibalize your league here to make it happen. I love football and I love NFL football but to be entirely honest there's not one single NFL owner (and this includes Bob McNair) that I don't deep down inside think is a money grubbing slug. It's just what they are. It's their nature. There's not enough money in the universe to fill the hole inside each of them. They have a very good thing going but they seem bound and determined to screw it up if they can find a way. Their biggest problem is simple greed but running a close second is this inability to grasp the concept that more football is not necessarily a good thing. They'll get it up to 20 games a year and have teams all around the world before I die I imagine and even then they'll be trying to break the hot dog vendors union over the price of mustard because they think they're paying too much.

I don't mind them expanding Internationally. I just don't think the logistics of Europe would ever work. Mexico City and Toronto would be fine, because they're fairly close.

houstonspartan
10-27-2012, 09:39 PM
They wouldn't want to play in 'Prime Time' anyway, when the Texans kick off at noon that's a 6pm start here, when they play late it's 9pm, when they play prime time we're talking 1 or 2 am on a work night.

So talk of the time-difference getting to people is somewhat silly I think. What time is the London game starting tomorrow? Pretty similar to the rest of the games I believe, the UK audience would prefer what you call noon games which would suit the NFL because the home audience always is in prime time, and the other team never have to adjust to local time.

The problems really don't lie in the logistics anywhere near as much as some people would like to think. There would be little to no issue with time difference, it would be fly in-fly out (possibly for both teams) without even noticing the time zone, the Texans played on Monday night in NYC, what time did they get back to Houston Airport? What time did they get home? Early hours of the morning? Not so early hours of the morning? An away team playing in London could fly back straight after the game and get back around 10-11pm quite comfortably.

Seriously?


Think you may be missing the point. NYC to Houston is a flight of about three hours. London to Houston is about EIGHT HOURS. (I've done it). It's not so much the time change, it's the time change AND spending long amounts of time on an airplane. And that's one way.

Fly in and fly out without noticing the time change? Um, no. Even if you slept well on an airplane (which not everyone does), the body's circadian rhythms would still be screwed up, because your body is flying through several time zones rapidly. That's why it's called JET LAG.

Your "fly in, fly out" scenario calls for about 14 or 15 hours just in the air, for one weekend. Sorry, but, I just don't see how that works.

Hookem Horns
10-27-2012, 09:50 PM
This is ridiculous. It's called American Football for a reason. I don't see the English considering putting an EPL team in the US.

Toronto would not be big deal to me. Canada is very much like the US and all of the major sports here already have teams in Canada.

Mexico City? Not sure about that one. Would they have Gringo Heritage Month down there when the rest of the teams up here are doing the Hispanic Heritage thing? Plus Mexico is not a stable country. How many NFL players would start getting kidnapped by the cartels?

markn
10-27-2012, 10:07 PM
Seriously?


Think you may be missing the point. NYC to Houston is a flight of about three hours. London to Houston is about EIGHT HOURS. (I've done it). It's not so much the time change, it's the time change AND spending long amounts of time on an airplane. And that's one way.

Fly in and fly out without noticing the time change? Um, no. Even if you slept well on an airplane (which not everyone does), the body's circadian rhythms would still be screwed up, because your body is flying through several time zones rapidly. That's why it's called JET LAG.

Your "fly in, fly out" scenario calls for about 14 or 15 hours just in the air, for one weekend. Sorry, but, I just don't see how that works.

All true, but it could be managed in theory. To make life palettable for the London team they could do a road-trip and play several road games in a row. For visiting teams, the schedule could be organized so that teams travel while on their bye-week.

Concessions such as these would help, but the London team would still have the biggest home advantage and worst away disadvantage in the league. The other teams most disadvantaged would be the 3 teams sharing a division with London as they'd have to make the trip every year, and as the divisions are currently set, that would likely include us - if the tarps are the team relocated.

The EPL thought about, but ultimately dismissed the idea of a plus-one season where every team played one game overseas. The NFL has already taken a similar move with the current games in London. It seems to me that there is a certain inevitability about this, and as a relocated Londoner who's lived here in Houston through the birth of our new team, I feel really weird about it. Ideally for me if it happened, they'd be in the NFC giving me a non-conference team to partially root for instead of my default position for cheering for whoever in the NFC happens to be playing the cowgirls!

houstonspartan
10-27-2012, 11:08 PM
All true, but it could be managed in theory. To make life palettable for the London team they could do a road-trip and play several road games in a row. For visiting teams, the schedule could be organized so that teams travel while on their bye-week.

Concessions such as these would help, but the London team would still have the biggest home advantage and worst away disadvantage in the league. The other teams most disadvantaged would be the 3 teams sharing a division with London as they'd have to make the trip every year, and as the divisions are currently set, that would likely include us - if the tarps are the team relocated.

The EPL thought about, but ultimately dismissed the idea of a plus-one season where every team played one game overseas. The NFL has already taken a similar move with the current games in London. It seems to me that there is a certain inevitability about this, and as a relocated Londoner who's lived here in Houston through the birth of our new team, I feel really weird about it. Ideally for me if it happened, they'd be in the NFC giving me a non-conference team to partially root for instead of my default position for cheering for whoever in the NFC happens to be playing the cowgirls!

Would traveling during the bye week be considered an actual off week? My understanding is that the bye week essentially is a vacation week for the team. That's why you see everyone scatter during the bye week. They're relaxing. Would the players association allow owners to force players to hop on a plane and fly halfway around the world during a bye week?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but, my understanding is that Houston entering the NFL got the number of teams back to an even number, which allowed for bye weeks to be reconfigured so that bye weeks don't happen to late in the season for any team. That's what I've always heard, anyway. Would an expansion team 5,000 miles away mess this up?

Norg
10-28-2012, 04:01 AM
Just think Seattle seahawks to UK WOWWWZAAAAAA

steelbtexan
10-28-2012, 04:06 AM
It is the National Football League. It's not the World Football League or the International Football League.

The day they put a team in London, or Mexico City, or Toronto is going to be a very bad day for NFL fans everywhere. How much do these *******s have to own? How much money is enough?

If they want a league in England start a damn league in England but don't cannibalize your league here to make it happen. I love football and I love NFL football but to be entirely honest there's not one single NFL owner (and this includes Bob McNair) that I don't deep down inside think is a money grubbing slug. It's just what they are. It's their nature. There's not enough money in the universe to fill the hole inside each of them. They have a very good thing going but they seem bound and determined to screw it up if they can find a way. Their biggest problem is simple greed but running a close second is this inability to grasp the concept that more football is not necessarily a good thing. They'll get it up to 20 games a year and have teams all around the world before I die I imagine and even then they'll be trying to break the hot dog vendors union over the price of mustard because they think they're paying too much.

MSR

Spot On

welsh texan
10-28-2012, 04:14 AM
Would traveling during the bye week be considered an actual off week? My understanding is that the bye week essentially is a vacation week for the team. That's why you see everyone scatter during the bye week. They're relaxing. Would the players association allow owners to force players to hop on a plane and fly halfway around the world during a bye week?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but, my understanding is that Houston entering the NFL got the number of teams back to an even number, which allowed for bye weeks to be reconfigured so that bye weeks don't happen to late in the season for any team. That's what I've always heard, anyway. Would an expansion team 5,000 miles away mess this up?

Think it'd be 2 expansion teams most likely London and LA.

I don't want people to get thinking I'm for this idea btw, I'm really not.

I think you'd have an east coast training base that would be available to teams travelling to London as well as the London team travelling to the US.

I also thnk we're too hung up on the UK 'stealing' a club, its Kraft, Goodell etc. who are pushing this because they can see the £££ in their eyes, look at Arsenal who moved from Highbury at around 32,000 seats to the Emirates Stadium with a little over 60,000 seats, and have sold out every single game ever since, with the highest ticket prices in the entire EPL and an average ticket price somewhere around £65.

Tickets for the IS cost somewhere around £100 average I believe, they have to tarp some of the lower sections of the 90,000 seater bowl because the views are obstructed by the sidelines in a way in which they aren't in soccer (most soccer stadia now have front rows that are actually slightly below pitch level to cram more people in) so they'll get say 85,000 attendees, paying £8,500,000 for their tickets, thats before all the extras such as advertising, TV rights, pie and bovril sales (remember last time I went some awful New Yorker shouting "God damn fish and chips...a guy can't even get a hawt dawg" and laughing my face off at him!

I'd be buying a shiny new Jersey specially for the occasion if I was going today, thats another £70 in their pockets...they make unbelievable money out of the one game they play. I'm sure they'll pretty much double their winnings by coming here twice from next season.

I highly doubt the kind of bottom lines they are seeing though would translate to having a full time club based in London. Its a soccer city, even with only an 8 home-game schedule I really do think the novelty would wear off pretty quickly, Im not going to travel the M6/M1 8 times a year to watch my team (not that I'd switch), but in years when the game suits my schedule I do go to the IS. As a one off.

When Jax, Tampa Bay, Miami, St. Louis give up a home game, as much as I feel for their fans, the NFL makes crazy amounts of cash compared to when they have to try selling tickets at $20 and cover the upper decks in tarps just to hide the embarrassment of a blackout.

I don't think the problem is in any kind of charter plane first class flight in which the players do not take any notice of the time difference, in fact I think an away team such as NE who get their bye week bang on mid season and who will have vastly more support within the stadium than their 'home' opponents actually get a pretty good deal out of the whole trip.

In actual fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the crowd is noticeably quieter when NE are on O and louder when NE are on D tonight. (I've heard negative comments in previous years that the crowd don't understand the game because some team like the Buccs are at home and the crowd don't shut up when they're on O, no, none of us support the Buccs!!:rake:)

This is why Kraft wants a London team, this is why Kraft pushes to have away games in London for his team every year, he knows its going to favour his team instead of playing a proper away game, and it lines his pockets considerably more than whatever ticket sales a team like St. Louis can manage.

We aren't nicking your sport off you, your greedy bastard sport wants to expand into our zone at a time when sports in general are all trying to become more global. You guys have an F1 race in Texas coming up, 20 years ago it was a European championship which went to different continents maybe 5 times a season. They're expecting as few as 4 European GP's within the next few years. And thats because it makes more money when they fly away.

TheMatrix31
10-28-2012, 05:05 AM
Shut up Robert Kraft. Just SHUT UP.

LondonTex
10-28-2012, 06:17 AM
Firstly let me say that American football is my favourite sport. I realise that we have many NFL fans (of ALL teams) but the UK is not an NFL nation. While it may be my favourite sport, many NFLUK fans see it as their second sport, next to soccer. Secondly let me say that I HATE THIS IDEA! I have debated this over on different UK forums and amongst friends and am part of what I see as a pretty large contingent who strongly oppose this idea. Over on the different forums I've seen strong opposition from the UK mods and admins.

Kraft is a douche for thinking he is speaking on behalf of a many people (which clearly he is not) and IMO much of it is PR. So many factors are against this happening.

Here are just a few I can think of..I know there are many MANY more...

- the franchise would be in London which would rule out a large proportion of UK fans up north and in Scotland who would have no intention of travelling down for 8 games. Many fans travel down from scotland and from up north and across from Ireland for the IS game once a year..and the reason the IS game works so well is because it gives NFL fans of all teams a chance to sample live NFL games.... - the same volume of fans from far flung parts of the UK and Ireland would not be doing this for 8 RS games a year though. I'd hate to see a 90,000 stadium with so much tarp that it makes Everbank look like a sell out. I'm pretty confident that we don't have a large enough UK fanbase in the London area to make this a sensible and feasible option. Garnering new support for NFL is one thing - garnering enough support to financially uphold an English franchise is quite another. Lets face it, it's still a niche sport in this country. Many UK fans are soccer fans first and foremost and will not choose NFL over their soccer teams if the 2 clash...As for our other popular sports, rugby union and rugby league we don't even sell out most rugby games each week and they are far more popular here than NFL.
There is a huge overestimation of the British 'love of sport'...rugby union, for example is popular for some of the year mainly due to the international scene...same with cricket. For the rest of the year EPL (and the other soccer leagues) is the only show in town I'm afraid. NFL would fall a long way behind for most.

-if it was an expansion, think logistics. Would all the owners vote for this even if one team wanted to turn its back on America? Not so much... Travelling is expensive enough for teams without a trip to London to worry about

-I don't think people would want Wembley (our hallowed English turf) turned into a spud turf for 5 months of the year so a new stadium would need to be built/ used- not gonna happen!

- A new franchise means a whole new roster...Would many players refuse to play in London? Of course they would. Bo Jackson, Elway and Manning and others have refused to play for clubs - Can you imagine a number 1 pick playing in London? Not so much ! Can you imagine a young kid leaving his family to go play in London? Some may, most would hate the idea.

-New franchises always struggle and the UK are always especially pessimistic about new things- this one would die quickly. A waste of time IMO

-Teams would fight till the cows came home to avoid being in the same division as a London franchise. West coast fixtures would be awful...imagine the flight time for either team. Thats why I feel bad for teams like the niners who come and play here for the IS game.

-Salaries - . Which country would the UK franchise staff be taxed in? Would they be based on the east coast and just fly in for games? If they were based here, earning their living here, they would be taxed unfairly compared to their US counterparts. The whole thing stinks.

Most NFL fans here have their own team that they have followed since the 80's, 90's and beyond. Would they suddenly drop their team to support a UK franchise? Some would, I doubt most would though. Some may adopt them as their second team but this 'casual support' along with the 'new fans' would not be enough to sustain this franchise long term.

The scheduling would be an absolute nightmare. I could go on and on. Let me also say this - the NFL in the states is raking in billions of dollars each year. the NFL is NOT in decline - do they need to tap out into other countries in terms of interest, merchandise etc....sure, fine. But to transplant 53 young men to another country to play for a franchise? Not a hope in hell. It seems to me that Mr Goodell just wants to be 'the man who took the NFL to the world' as his legacy.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. I may be wrong but I'm passionate about it and so are many others I speak to. I absolutely hate this idea...and as a Londoner it's important that all my new friends on here know that I'm absolutely not on board with this terrible idea. Personally I don't think it'll ever happen. I won't compare it to the shambles that was NFL Europe because that was a completely different animal altogether but this new franchise/relocated franchise will not happen...not in my lifetime anyway.

p.s if the NFL simply must have an international franchise then why not do the sensible thing and put one in mexico...they have a lot of NFL fans there after all. Imagine the potential for the rivalries between mexican teams and Texan teams ...just a thought.

LondonTex
10-28-2012, 07:07 AM
Send the jags. They are playing 2 games a year there anyway. :kitten:

Er, No - that would suck ... Don't forget who's also in their division :kubepalm:

welsh texan
10-28-2012, 07:45 AM
LondonTex made an extremely interesting point about tax. How is a London franchise going to attract anyone in FA when they will be taxed 50p in the £1.

BullBlitz
10-28-2012, 09:23 AM
A London game sells out right now because it is a unique event and a curiosity. Europeans are soccer fans. Until their kids and schools begin to play football (that is unlikely to happen) it will never catch on in a big way, and I don't think that they should have a franchise.

welsh texan
10-28-2012, 09:40 AM
A London game sells out right now because it is a unique event and a curiosity. Europeans are soccer fans. Until their kids and schools begin to play football (that is unlikely to happen) it will never catch on in a big way, and I don't think that they should have a franchise.

Yeh, we have this thing over here called 'Health & Safety'. Schools are barely allowed to play rugby let alone starting to play American Football.

LondonTex
10-28-2012, 10:39 AM
A London game sells out right now because it is a unique event and a curiosity. Europeans are soccer fans. Until their kids and schools begin to play football (that is unlikely to happen) it will never catch on in a big way, and I don't think that they should have a franchise.

True - I know some universities play it here. Every now and then you hear a fairy-tale about a Brit making it in the NFL(not straight outta English university mind lol). Heck - the smallest high school football games in the states get way more fans coming out to watch than our university games...that goes for soccer too. Everything is different here. You get more people going to watch a college football game than we do an EPL game in most cases. Kinda puts things into perspective. When I was a 7 or 8 year old ankle-biter, back in the 80's we used to play American football at junior school, as a recreational sport because the playground monitor was a former player and the NFL had a cult following here on TV in the 80s. But that's what it was to us kids....a recreational thing. Even the guys that play today in our British leagues have no grandiose delusions that they will make mega-bucks, make it as a pro and make it big...it's something they do for the love of the game. Lets keep things in perspective. The NFL is a Pro game, played by American professionals. Trying to replicate that with a UK franchise full of American players, an American FO with possibly a token British player thrown in just to keep the naysayers happy is just trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

I love the NFL...I love America...But I'm happy that I follow the NFL from the UK...I have plenty of avenues to keep up with my beloved sport without sci-fi ideas of a successful London franchise.....I feel part of an exclusive club. It's 'my' sport that nearly all of my friends and family have no interest in. I want it to stay where it is....apart from the odd game here and there I fully believe it will!

I wonder if I got my point across yet ;)

The Medic01
10-28-2012, 11:19 AM
No just no. AS mentioned the jet lag could really screw teams over. The Londonites would have a lot of trouble watching away games. You would have to keep them interested for 16 games and many many years. The team would have to be good within 4-5 years or it would surely fail. Just no.

GP
10-28-2012, 11:36 AM
Always follow the money.

Kraft has a lot to gain, personally, if there's a team in UK. Follow the money.

When a guy is outspoken for an idea like that--that's impractical to most--it means that guy has money to be made from it. Not sure "how," but certainly there'd be only one reason a US owner would be this in-the-tank for a UK team when they all know, WE all know, it is not a good idea for the actual long term.

ItsMyFault
10-28-2012, 11:49 AM
No thank you. This is just a big hassle for no reason. There isn't even a need to expand there.

Nawzer
10-28-2012, 11:56 AM
Money will be the ultimate deciding factor here as usual. If the NFL thinks it can make a lot of money in the UK by putting a team there then it will probably happen sometime in the future. But I think I have a better idea: the NFL should consider creating 32 surrogate teams all over Europe and S. America perhaps. Imagine a Houston Texans team based in Europe! I think that would be pretty cool. They would wear the same uniforms and logos. I think this will not only generate revenue but also create genuine interest in following these teams because of the name attached to them. A part of the problem with NFL Europe was that most fans stateside did not identify with these teams. If fans can identify and relate with the teams then it will automatically generate interest.

Wolf
10-28-2012, 12:19 PM
To piggy off of Nawzer ,Knowing the nfl ,the would put a Texans related team in Spain where bull fighting still goes on :kitten:

Nawzer
10-28-2012, 02:26 PM
To piggy off of Nawzer ,Knowing the nfl ,the would put a Texans related team in Spain where bull fighting still goes on :kitten:

Ole! :cow:

LondonTex
10-29-2012, 08:07 AM
Well after watching yesterday's blowout in London (on TV) I'm happy I sold my tickets - with the money I bought an authentic Foster Jersey and had money left over.

What a terrible atmosphere at the game. Most people that went said it was awful, dull and many 'fans' who were casual fans no doubt, seemed disinterested. Many don't know about making noise on third down or any other noise for that matter. I turned over to gamepass to enjoy the Dolphins spanking the Jets after a while

Thorn
10-29-2012, 08:25 AM
This is not a good idea. I really feel sorry for the players that would spend half their games with all that travel time. That team will never be in the playoffs because their players are going to be to tired to play all their road games.

This idea sucks.

TdotTexas2Step
10-29-2012, 08:38 AM
It is the National Football League. It's not the World Football League or the International Football League.

The day they put a team in London, or Mexico City, or Toronto is going to be a very bad day for NFL fans everywhere. How much do these *******s have to own? How much money is enough?



MSR

Spot On

I'm sorry, but how exactly is this "spot on"?

Might as well change the name of the National Basketball Association, or the National Hockey League, and throw in the American League of the MLB in there as well because they all have teams from Toronto.

Personally, I would cheer against any Toronto NFL team because they'd probably be placed in the AFC and thus would stand in the way of the Texans. They already shove the Bills down our throats here, so I could only imagine.

On the flip side, it would give me a chance to see the Houston Texans live from here instead of watching every game on NFL Sunday Ticket.

Regardless, I can see why some people would oppose a team move here, but to say it would be "a very bad day for NFL fans everywhere" stinks of a child who refuses to share.

Why? Because I consider myself an NFL fan too.

LondonTex
10-29-2012, 10:11 AM
This is not a good idea. I really feel sorry for the players that would spend half their games with all that travel time. That team will never be in the playoffs because their players are going to be to tired to play all their road games.

This idea sucks.

agreed Thorn

TexanSam
10-29-2012, 10:19 AM
Until a supersonic jet comes along that can make the flight across the pond in 2 or 3 hours, then this should not happen. I don't have a problem with the NFL wanting to go international. But putting a team in Toronto or Monterrey is a lot easier than putting a team almost in another hemisphere.

Thorn
10-29-2012, 10:21 AM
Until a supersonic jet comes along that can make the flight across the pond in 2 or 3 hours, then this should not happen. I don't have a problem with the NFL wanting to go international. But putting a team in Toronto or Monterrey is a lot easier than putting a team almost in another hemisphere.

This makes much more sense if they just have to go international. Which they don't.

LondonTex
10-29-2012, 11:42 AM
This makes much more sense if they just have to go international. Which they don't.

This has always been one of my main points. The NFL is not in decline or anything that they need to tap out to other countries.
Fair enough, reach out to international fans in certain ways...even have exhibition games in the off season in different countries if the current IS games die a slow death, plenty of merch and avenues for fans abroad to continue to watch their beloved sport (like the UK subscription to gamepass which comes in very handy :) ) ...but the NFL doesn't 'need' to place franchises in other countries. I suspect Goodell is making this about him and his 'legacy' rather than the good of the NFL and it's fans. Anyway I've said enough about this subject on here and the other forums...I get bored of hearing myself rehash the same old same old...I'm not even concerned cuz it aint ever gonna happen!

As for the Rams yesterday - I bet they're glad they pulled out of the London deal. It was more like a road game for them in terms of fan support. I wonder if they'd have been blown out as badly at their actual home as they were in London.

Hervoyel
10-29-2012, 04:35 PM
I'm sorry, but how exactly is this "spot on"?

Might as well change the name of the National Basketball Association, or the National Hockey League, and throw in the American League of the MLB in there as well because they all have teams from Toronto.

Personally, I would cheer against any Toronto NFL team because they'd probably be placed in the AFC and thus would stand in the way of the Texans. They already shove the Bills down our throats here, so I could only imagine.

On the flip side, it would give me a chance to see the Houston Texans live from here instead of watching every game on NFL Sunday Ticket.

Regardless, I can see why some people would oppose a team move here, but to say it would be "a very bad day for NFL fans everywhere" stinks of a child who refuses to share.

Why? Because I consider myself an NFL fan too.

Why should I share? Why should any NFL fan have to share above and beyond the televised games that you already get up there and that they already get overseas? When did sharing become part of this paradigm? NFL owners don't share. Find me some Buffalo fans who actually live in Buffalo who are tickled to death with home games played in Toronto. Show me NFL fans from any city that has an NFL team who are completely positive about any home games played out of their home city. I've never read anything but comments complaining about or dreading the possibility of having home games taken away to be "shared" with other locations. My first instinct is to to say "**** that!"

Look, there's only room for so many teams. If the NFL added another 8 teams to accommodate Los Angelas, London, Toronto, and who knows what other locations the greedy bastards have in mind that would mean that 12 teams at the bottom of the first round would be taking players who were no better than second round talent back when the league was at 28 teams. There is a finite amount of talent as it is.

The rest of you should enjoy your televised NFL experience, maybe plan a vacation weekend to see a team you like, and quit expecting people who have NFL football to want to share it with you. Expansion is bad for the sport. It's good for the bank accounts of the owners so it will probably happen but that doesn't mean it's good for the sport. The NFL owners won't realize this until they've completely saturated the market for their product but more football does not always equal better football or a better experience for football fans. Alternately moving an NFL team to another city in another country is wrong on so many levels that it shouldn't even need to be explained. The day the Bills move from Buffalo to Toronto is indeed a bad day to be an NFL fan.

gtexan02
10-29-2012, 04:42 PM
The NFL is going to do whatever it can to maximize profits. The only voice we have as fans is our money. Is anyone going to boycott the NFL because they put a team overseas? Unlikely

Whenever the NFL changes the rules, has a lockout, moves teams, talks about foreign expansion or 18 game seasons, there's a lot of talk about how bad of an idea it is. It comes down to a basic business decision. Does this increase revenues, yes or no? The league doesn't really care about the fans as long as they keep paying

Hagar
10-29-2012, 05:03 PM
When a game sells out in London, its because its a novelty and not because the British want American Football. If they put a team over there, it'll be broke in three years.

Hervoyel
10-29-2012, 05:03 PM
What if they put your team overseas gtexan02? I don't know how you would respond but I'd wash my hands of the bastards. I love watching NFL football but I went without it when the Oiler's left and I've never returned to the same level of passion I had before then. I don't pretend to be a Browns fan but I feel for those people and have a healthy hatred of Art Modell for what he did to them. It carries over to his former team and the city of Baltimore which I just really friggin despise because they had an NFL owner screw them and then turned around later and with Modell did the exact same thing to another teams fans. I have nothing but loathing for the Ravens. Always have.

I think once the league screws you over you see them in a different light. I don't see life without the NFL as a particularly bad thing. It's entertainment. I can find other entertainment.

LondonTex
10-29-2012, 05:25 PM
Sorry to beat the same drum over and over but just want to re-emphasise a point - I genuinely believe the vast majority of serious UK NFL fans don't want a franchise here - we are happy supporting our teams in the states from a distance - via gamepass, TV, trips abroad etc. I see the talk of a potential UK franchise as a PR stunt to continue to garner interest in the NFL for the reasons of merchandise sales, NFL gamepass subscriptions, IS games, to get new fans interested in their product etc - surely the NFL don't seriously believe it can work? Maybe other UK peeps on here can correct me if they feel differently

gwallaia
10-29-2012, 05:37 PM
Don't those people only watch the other kind of football?

LondonTex
10-29-2012, 05:43 PM
Don't those people only watch the other kind of football?

Is that a question to me?

gtexan02
10-29-2012, 05:50 PM
What if they put your team overseas gtexan02? I don't know how you would respond but I'd wash my hands of the bastards.
I cheer for the Texans because I'm from Houston. I haven't lived in Houston since 2002, although my family does. If the team left Houston, of course I'd quit cheering for them eventually. This isn't happening though, so its not really indicative of anything.[/quote]

I think once the league screws you over you see them in a different light. I don't see life without the NFL as a particularly bad thing. It's entertainment. I can find other entertainment.
I wasn't really an Oilers fan enough to feel betrayed by the NFL. Maybe thats the difference

gwallaia
10-29-2012, 05:55 PM
Is that a question to me?

Well, it was directed to the general membership but you are probably more qualified to answer it.

CretorFrigg
10-29-2012, 06:47 PM
I can see a team in Canada like Vancouver or Toronto...but London? The travel time would be ridiculous.

And contrary to some in here, I think it'd be great for the NFL to move into Canada.

Double Barrel
10-29-2012, 06:55 PM
I think once the league screws you over you see them in a different light. I don't see life without the NFL as a particularly bad thing. It's entertainment. I can find other entertainment.

Straight up. As much passion as I have for the Texans, it never leaves my mind that it's a entertainment business, first and foremost. I never felt that with the Oilers. They were a part of the Houston landscape. Regardless of their choking history and buffoon of an owner, they were still "our" team. We all collectively loved that team, adored the players, and all shared in the few triumphs and overwhelming heartbreaks. That was our team...until, that is, we found out the hard way.

I do not think Bob McNair would ever do that to the Texans and Houston. But, he's going to pass away one day and someone else will own the team. I do not know who that will be, but I cannot assume that this new owner will have the same devotion to the city. In 20 years Reliant will be considered an old stadium, so the cycle continues. The next owner will want whatever state-of-the-art whistles and bells that will be available by then, and if Houstonian's don't/won't pay for it, then the FRANCHISE can be moved.

And that's what "our" team is at the end of the day. A FRANCHISE. An investment in an entertainment industry. And just like any other franchise, they can move and change names, colors, whatever. The NFL cares about fans...as long as we are paying customers. I get it. It's just business.

That's life with the NFL. Enjoy it while we've got it. No promises for tomorrow when that stadium lease expires.

Speedy
10-29-2012, 07:02 PM
American football will never take in Europe because they don't play the game at the lower levels. I think that's one of the main reasons NFLE failed. That and the fact nobody over there wants to see a bunch of 4th string Americans play a sport they are unfamiliar with.

If you just have to expand internationally, Toronto would make much more sense since they have been playing their version of American football there for decades already. Not sure the Argonauts owner would agree though.

welsh texan
10-30-2012, 01:43 AM
Well, it was directed to the general membership but you are probably more qualified to answer it.

Yes is the short answer...and far more furvantly than America supports American Football, England - population 50 million, proffessional association football clubs, 115. USA - population is what? 360 million (unsure off the top of my head) and supports 32 proffessional American Football clubs.

I don't like the tone guys like Herv take towards us uk fans in threads like this, and don't get me wrong, I have plenty of respect for Herv as a poster, but you call your Super Bowl winner world champions, and not a single Brit on this board has posted in favour of a franchise, I also think from LT's post about the atmos, many other proper fans over here must be giving the IS a miss just like me, I ain't handing over a ton to watch the Pats have the Rams beat by the end of the first half, hence why I haven't bothered going the last few years now.

That doesn't mean you won't get a sell out from less informed fans because we're crazy for sport over here and being drip fed it in meagre quantities will keep that curiosity element coming. They hype it well and of course there is a huge corporate element too.

Time to get off the high horse. You don't like expansion and your a Texans fan? Jesus.

Norg
10-30-2012, 02:31 AM
if they wanna expand expand into Canada and Mexico City keep it in North america 4 now plzzz


is the future goal u think is to acctually expand it into a world wide leauge kinda how soccer is and even soccer i dont no much about it but even that is not a worldwide league

TdotTexas2Step
10-30-2012, 02:32 AM
Why should I share? Why should any NFL fan have to share above and beyond the televised games that you already get up there and that they already get overseas? When did sharing become part of this paradigm? NFL owners don't share. Find me some Buffalo fans who actually live in Buffalo who are tickled to death with home games played in Toronto. Show me NFL fans from any city that has an NFL team who are completely positive about any home games played out of their home city. I've never read anything but comments complaining about or dreading the possibility of having home games taken away to be "shared" with other locations. My first instinct is to to say "**** that!"

Look, there's only room for so many teams. If the NFL added another 8 teams to accommodate Los Angelas, London, Toronto, and who knows what other locations the greedy bastards have in mind that would mean that 12 teams at the bottom of the first round would be taking players who were no better than second round talent back when the league was at 28 teams. There is a finite amount of talent as it is.

The rest of you should enjoy your televised NFL experience, maybe plan a vacation weekend to see a team you like, and quit expecting people who have NFL football to want to share it with you. Expansion is bad for the sport. It's good for the bank accounts of the owners so it will probably happen but that doesn't mean it's good for the sport. The NFL owners won't realize this until they've completely saturated the market for their product but more football does not always equal better football or a better experience for football fans. Alternately moving an NFL team to another city in another country is wrong on so many levels that it shouldn't even need to be explained. The day the Bills move from Buffalo to Toronto is indeed a bad day to be an NFL fan.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but there's a fair chance it may happen one day, and hopefully you don't get too worked up about it.

You need to look at it differently. The number of season tickets sold to people from Toronto area rose almost 50 per cent in 2010, and as a result, the Bills sold 55,000 season tickets, their 3rd highest total in the franchise's history. If anything, they've helped keep the Bills in Buffalo.

Regardless, I get where you're coming from. It just rubs me the wrong way when you don't consider anyone outside of the US as "an NFL fan". We are cheering for the same team right?

Lastly, I guess we just view pride differently. You're proud of the NFL and don't feel any entitlement to share it. While I'm proud of it and would jump at any chance to convert a ton of people I know here into an NFL fan of their own team. The sport is that awesome and people shouldn't live without it.

To each their own I guess.

houstonspartan
10-30-2012, 03:08 AM
Yes is the short answer...and far more furvantly than America supports American Football, England - population 50 million, proffessional association football clubs, 115. USA - population is what? 360 million (unsure off the top of my head) and supports 32 proffessional American Football clubs.

I don't like the tone guys like Herv take towards us uk fans in threads like this, and don't get me wrong, I have plenty of respect for Herv as a poster, but you call your Super Bowl winner world champions, and not a single Brit on this board has posted in favour of a franchise, I also think from LT's post about the atmos, many other proper fans over here must be giving the IS a miss just like me, I ain't handing over a ton to watch the Pats have the Rams beat by the end of the first half, hence why I haven't bothered going the last few years now.

That doesn't mean you won't get a sell out from less informed fans because we're crazy for sport over here and being drip fed it in meagre quantities will keep that curiosity element coming. They hype it well and of course there is a huge corporate element too.

Time to get off the high horse. You don't like expansion and your a Texans fan? Jesus.

Personally, I love London, I love Brits, I love British humor, and I love everything about England. I consider the Brits to be our brothers and sisters. I just am not sure if the logistics for an expansion team would work in Europe.

Toronto and Mexico City would be more feasable; but, then again, I like Canadians, and I've had a blast every time I've gone to Mexico, too. lol. Guess I just see interesting cultures and people everywhere I travel.

LondonTex
10-30-2012, 05:58 AM
Don't those people only watch the other kind of football?

I didn't get a chance to answer this last night but Welsh Texan has done a fine job articulating some things I hadn't thought of and echoing other thoughts of mine.

By 'those people' I assume you mean anyone that is not American... Well..Yes, we watch and love football (of the round ball variety) and it is our national sport. I loved it long before American football. Most UK NFL fans that I've come into contact with support a team passionately and have done so for longer than they have their NFL team... And yet, for many (not all) NFL football has overtaken 'soccer' as our favourite sport - myself included - and guess what? If you lay the 'Brits don't understand our game' stereotype aside, you'll find I'm capable of being able to understand the game just fine ...I can even have a conversation about it - and I've made it my business to learn it as I love the game so much - many of the proper UK and other European fans, whilst living and/or originating outside of the USA, are equally as knowledgeable as the US fans and in some cases more knowledgeable than some US fans - we have to work hard to learn this wonderful game and although information and games are far more accessible to us now than they were in the 80s it is still a dribs and drabs kind of thing, which is fine as we only have a subculture of fans here, which again, is fine. NFL gamepass helps a lot as the WWW - That's why I don't expect or want a new or expansion franchise here - however, alluding to WT re: the tone of some posters, he's right! Although I suspect they talk more unfavourably towards the UK franchise idea as a whole and not UK peeps in general (I would hope not)- we all root for the same team lest we forget - many UK fans have rooted for the Texans since the start.

infantrycak
10-30-2012, 11:36 AM
I don't think the logistics work out for a team in London. Think about travel for the west coast teams to London or vice versa. Mexico City would make a lot of sense if they were going to an international location.

Hervoyel
10-30-2012, 11:57 AM
Yes is the short answer...and far more furvantly than America supports American Football, England - population 50 million, proffessional association football clubs, 115. USA - population is what? 360 million (unsure off the top of my head) and supports 32 proffessional American Football clubs.

I don't like the tone guys like Herv take towards us uk fans in threads like this, and don't get me wrong, I have plenty of respect for Herv as a poster, but you call your Super Bowl winner world champions, and not a single Brit on this board has posted in favour of a franchise, I also think from LT's post about the atmos, many other proper fans over here must be giving the IS a miss just like me, I ain't handing over a ton to watch the Pats have the Rams beat by the end of the first half, hence why I haven't bothered going the last few years now.

That doesn't mean you won't get a sell out from less informed fans because we're crazy for sport over here and being drip fed it in meagre quantities will keep that curiosity element coming. They hype it well and of course there is a huge corporate element too.

Time to get off the high horse. You don't like expansion and your a Texans fan? Jesus.


Let me be perfectly clear. You can get your fan on to whatever degree you wish and I'm fine with that. I'm happy for you. I'm glad you find NFL football enjoyable and that you get to watch it on TV. I think the NFL should be making efforts to broadcast their games anywhere there is sufficient fan interest to justify the effort.

Having said that and keeping in mind that I don't begrudge you one iota of your "fanliness" I will now go on to address each of your other points.

Super Bowl winners being World Champions: Fine by me. Start a league somewhere else, crown a champion and lets play for the title if you want but until someone else starts playing the sport enough to want to object to that whole "World Champions" thing I think it's entirely suitable to call them that.

Every UK poster has (I think) said that they were not in favor of a team in the UK. That's not really much of an issue to me. My beef is with the NFL itself and how dead-set it appears to be to do this. Believe me when I say that you could all be marching in the streets demanding a franchise and if the NFL didn't want to do it then you wouldn't get it. Likewise every American NFL fan could loudly object to a team overseas and if the league thinks they're gonna make money doing it that's happening. They could care less what we think as long as we keep throwing money at them. When I go off on one of these rants I'm mad at the league, not the fans..... anywhere. At the same time I'm going to be fairly straightforward in stating how I feel about it. It's something I am passionate about. With local governments held hostage regularly for stadiums, stadium upgrades, and other issues I'd be more than happy to see Congress look at some kind of legal way of holding teams where they are or cutting them all off from the public teet entirely. We pay for stadiums, training facilities, and all kinds of improvements and the teams reap the financial rewards while we pay off the bonds.

I'm a fan of an expansion team because my team was stolen from my city by a fat worthless piece of dung named Bud Adams. If I had my way the Colts would be in Baltimore, The Rams would be in Los Angelas, The Titans would still be the Oilers and playing in Houston. The Cardinals would be in St. Louis where they belong and Carolina and Jacksonville wouldn't even exist. Cleveland wouldn't have needed an expansion team because Art Modell would have never been allowed to move them. The Ravens would have never been born. 28 teams was the perfect size for the NFL and everything since then has been a mistake, or an attempt to rectify a mistake in my opinion.

LondonTex
10-30-2012, 12:04 PM
I don't think the logistics work out for a team in London. Think about travel for the west coast teams to London or vice versa. Mexico City would make a lot of sense if they were going to an international location.

Exactly - I said this in various posts and stick by it - at least a team in Mexico could potentially have a decent geo rivalry with the Texans and cowgirls, Arizona and Cali

Hookem Horns
10-30-2012, 12:49 PM
The Sports Animal radio station in Tampa is speculating that the Jags are posturing to move over there. They talked about how much Sahid Kahn has been talking about how much he loves London of late and that he just committed to playing the next 4 seasons over there to build a fanbase.

He also grew up overseas in Pakistan and there is a huge Pakistani community in London which could play into this.

As a Texans fan I would hate to see them go because I only live 2 hours south of there and it's an easy road trip. However I don't see any real support for them outside of the immediate Jacksonville area. In the Orlando area the Dolphins are by far the more popular AFC team.

Double Barrel
10-30-2012, 01:26 PM
So, our division rival might move overseas, which would make it harder on them to win games for a variety of reasons.

yesssssss... :evil:

gwallaia
10-30-2012, 01:42 PM
If the NFL is going to force teams to play overseas, the bye week for those teams should come before they have to travel over there.

TheIronDuke
10-30-2012, 01:49 PM
So, our division rival might move overseas, which would make it harder on them to win games for a variety of reasons.

yesssssss... :evil:

Harder than having Elaine taking snaps at QB?

houstonspartan
10-30-2012, 01:53 PM
If the NFL is going to force teams to play overseas, the bye week for those teams should come before they have to travel over there.

Again: Wouldn't that essentially eliminate the bye week? An 8-hour-flight - one way - then two or three days to get over jet lag, then practice, then an 8-hour-flight home, then re-adjusting back to your home time zone for a few days, THEN getting ready for yet another game?


I just don't see London happening, people.

LondonTex
10-30-2012, 02:00 PM
I take nothing he says says seriously - especially when he spouts crap like this

"The NFL is going to be developing an international fan base. Why shouldn't it be the Jaguars?" Khan said in December. "In all honesty, internationally, they don't know the difference between the Jaguars and the Steelers."
Seriously ? He obviously knows nothing about the UK fans - guys a clown!

Luv_ya_blue
10-30-2012, 02:00 PM
What if they put your team overseas gtexan02? I don't know how you would respond but I'd wash my hands of the bastards. I love watching NFL football but I went without it when the Oiler's left and I've never returned to the same level of passion I had before then. I don't pretend to be a Browns fan but I feel for those people and have a healthy hatred of Art Modell for what he did to them. It carries over to his former team and the city of Baltimore which I just really friggin despise because they had an NFL owner screw them and then turned around later and with Modell did the exact same thing to another teams fans. I have nothing but loathing for the Ravens. Always have.

I think once the league screws you over you see them in a different light. I don't see life without the NFL as a particularly bad thing. It's entertainment. I can find other entertainment.

Must Spread FLIPPIN' Reputation before giving to Herv again!!!

SOMEBODY PLEASE REP THIS MAN FOR ME!
This is exactly how I feel.
You put it much more eloguently than I could've Herv.

LondonTex
10-30-2012, 02:02 PM
So, our division rival might move overseas, which would make it harder on them to win games for a variety of reasons.

yesssssss... :evil:

Don't get too happy - Like I said before - wouldn't this mean Texans trips to London at least once a season? :kubepalm:

Hookem Horns
10-30-2012, 02:34 PM
I don't know how the Brit fans here look at it, however I look at watching foreign sports like having ethnic food. I enjoy experiencing other cultures. Since my wife is from Spain and I spend a lot of time over there I have learned the language, learned to appreciate their food and culture which includes watching La Liga.

La Liga is a Spanish thing. When I watch it I only want to watch it in Spanish (not Mexican Spanish either).

IF La Liga decided one day to put a team in the US it would be a real turn off. It would take away the whole Spanish "vibe" it has.

I don't want macaroni and cheese served with my paella and I dang sure don't want my La Liga played in the US or anywhere else outside of Spain.

I am sure most US fans that follow the EPL feel the same way. EPL is English. I had a few friends in Austin that would get up early and head to Fado's an Irish Pub (closest thing to an English pub in Austin) to watch the EPL each week. I went with them a few times and I felt like I was taking in English culture. Put an EPL team in New York and it takes away from that.

To me it's like the NFL is wanting to take the "American" out of American Football.

ChampionTexan
10-30-2012, 02:42 PM
If the NFL is going to force teams to play overseas, the bye week for those teams should come before they have to travel over there.

So essentially that's saying the international travel is so grueling and such a hardship that the teams going to the UK need a bye week to prepare for it, yet the team coming the other direction will have to do the exact same thing a minimum of six times without the bye week to get ready (Seven if the opening game of the season is a home game for them).

Double Barrel
10-30-2012, 04:24 PM
Don't get too happy - Like I said before - wouldn't this mean Texans trips to London at least once a season? :kubepalm:

yeah, but 12:00 noon in Houston is 5:00 p.m. in London. It would basically be like a night game for the Texans.

But for London Jaguars players, road games to the U.S. would be a whole different story.

GP
10-30-2012, 09:18 PM
When a game sells out in London, its because its a novelty and not because the British want American Football. If they put a team over there, it'll be broke in three years.

It's like a traveling circus...you go to see some funky circus acts and then the tents fold up and the circus moves on to another town.

That's what NFL is to Europe: A sideshow that comes to them a few times a year, something "different" to do for a change of pace. Novelty.

Now, for guys like LondonTex and others here like him...it's not a novelty act. It's something they love deeply and are heavily invested in watching and growing alongside. But LondonTex says he knows the UK fan base for NFL is not as vibrant or long-suffering as the handful of games' attendance numbers might show (hope I am not destroying what LondonTex meant to say, just re-wording a bit for illustrative purposes here).

To that extent, the NFL needs to give up. But they won't. For some reason or another, maybe they have analysts and marketing gurus who say so, they tend to think there's diamonds to be mined overseas. Basketball is by far an easier globalized American pro sport because of various reasons...and I think the NFL is getting caught up in a classic case of "Keeping up with the Joneses."

paycheck71
10-30-2012, 10:26 PM
Again: Wouldn't that essentially eliminate the bye week? An 8-hour-flight - one way - then two or three days to get over jet lag, then practice, then an 8-hour-flight home, then re-adjusting back to your home time zone for a few days, THEN getting ready for yet another game?


I just don't see London happening, people.

Not in favor of London expansion, but I don't see why you have to get over the jet lag and time difference. Every London game will have to be a noon CST game. So, just stay on that schedule. Prepare at home. Fly into London one day early, sleep when your home time zone tells you to sleep, play your game, and get out.

gwallaia
10-30-2012, 10:45 PM
So essentially that's saying the international travel is so grueling and such a hardship that the teams going to the UK need a bye week to prepare for it, yet the team coming the other direction will have to do the exact same thing a minimum of six times without the bye week to get ready (Seven if the opening game of the season is a home game for them).

And that's just another reason why it is a bad idea to have an NFL team in London.

welsh texan
10-31-2012, 01:22 AM
Again: Wouldn't that essentially eliminate the bye week? An 8-hour-flight - one way - then two or three days to get over jet lag, then practice, then an 8-hour-flight home, then re-adjusting back to your home time zone for a few days, THEN getting ready for yet another game?


I just don't see London happening, people.

Listen, I'm in danger of bashing this point across for the Nth time here but they don't adjust to local time when they play here, they play the game at the same damn time they play in the US, they practice the same time as they would in the US and the actual players don't spend more than a couple of days on British soil...at most.

Worried about flight times? Buy and run a Concorde and you've just solved the problem. Worried about time-zones and jet lag? You're struggling with reading comprehension.

welsh texan
10-31-2012, 01:31 AM
I don't know how the Brit fans here look at it, however I look at watching foreign sports like having ethnic food. I enjoy experiencing other cultures. Since my wife is from Spain and I spend a lot of time over there I have learned the language, learned to appreciate their food and culture which includes watching La Liga.

La Liga is a Spanish thing. When I watch it I only want to watch it in Spanish (not Mexican Spanish either).

IF La Liga decided one day to put a team in the US it would be a real turn off. It would take away the whole Spanish "vibe" it has.

I don't want macaroni and cheese served with my paella and I dang sure don't want my La Liga played in the US or anywhere else outside of Spain.

I am sure most US fans that follow the EPL feel the same way. EPL is English. I had a few friends in Austin that would get up early and head to Fado's an Irish Pub (closest thing to an English pub in Austin) to watch the EPL each week. I went with them a few times and I felt like I was taking in English culture. Put an EPL team in New York and it takes away from that.

To me it's like the NFL is wanting to take the "American" out of American Football.

I know what you're getting at but dude, the whole ethnic food comparison doesn't work in the slightest. Our national dish is curry!

welsh texan
10-31-2012, 03:52 AM
This morning's papers are reporting that the NFL are in talks to take over the 2012 Olympic stadium, I'll edit with a link if/when I find one as it was just shown as a headline on BBC Breakfast and won't be back on for an hour. Here we go, must admit I'm posting this without having read the story in full so unsure of the the actual bones of the situation...

The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/9643938/NFL-franchises-in-talks-with-London-Mayor-Boris-Johnson-over-Olympic-Stadium.html)

NFL franchises in talks with London Mayor Boris Johnson over Olympic Stadium
...


With other events such as the 2015 Rugby World Cup, the 2017 World Athletics Championships and concerts due to take place at the stadium, the club have also pointed out in negotiations that they would not be the sole beneficiary of new seating arrangements.

This stance from a football club that could require full occupancy of the site more than 25 times a year might have been what encouraged Johnson to explore other tenancy options. An NFL anchor would require the facility for a maximum of 10 occasions each year theoretically permitting Formula One, already on the LLDC’s shortlist of possible tenants, also to use the stadium for an annual race.

Bringing two new sports to east London would have commercial benefits for the capital, which could potentially reach the hundreds of millions of pounds.

“Sunday’s game at Wembley, in front of more than 80,000 fans, further cements London’s reputation as the natural home of American football outside of the US,” the mayor’s spokesman added. “Only last week the mayor, in conjunction with the NFL, announced an expansion from one to two regular-season matches in London from 2013. That means in total an additional £44 million in revenue for the capital from next year.”
...

Well Boris Johnson reckons that London gains £44 million per game so you can see why he's all for it. Anyone else beginning to get a horrible feeling that this may actually be happenning? Seems like all the money men think its a great idea.

Plenty more in the article btw, including the list of other possible tennants, all of whom I think would fail pretty spectacularly, its proven that you can't play Association Football with a running track around the pitch and expect to draw crowds long term...F1 is proposing a once a year event and Bernie Ecclestone will break the city before he signs a favourable agreement with them, just look at the NY/NJ race, the Donnington debacle, the Turkish calamity etc.... all have their different reasons why they've failed but all we cases when Ecclestone wasn't willing to give up enough in negotiations to make it work for the venue. (A big part of the possible deal is that the legacy commitee get 2 or 3 tenants in the stadium instead of one).

Of course West Ham still desperately want the site even though it'd be a disaster, while Leyton Orient's bid is a protest vote at the idea of allowing their bigger local rival's to get an even bigger advantage over them (you've probably never heard of Leyton Orient because they are a lower league club)

Double Barrel
10-31-2012, 10:59 AM
I think a London expansion team is a ways off. However, I would not be surprised to see a Super Bowl exported to another country within the next two decades.

houstonspartan
10-31-2012, 11:33 AM
Listen, I'm in danger of bashing this point across for the Nth time here but they don't adjust to local time when they play here, they play the game at the same damn time they play in the US, they practice the same time as they would in the US and the actual players don't spend more than a couple of days on British soil...at most.

Worried about flight times? Buy and run a Concorde and you've just solved the problem. Worried about time-zones and jet lag? You're struggling with reading comprehension.

Ok, I've tried to remain respectful, because, as I said, I love Brits. But your response is the most ridiculous thing I have read.

Play the same time they'd play in the US? Hmm. Ok. So, games in the US start at Noon, Central time, so they'd start at, what, 5 or 6, London time? Ok. So, when, exactly, would they arrive in London? The night before, after flying all night? When would they have time to practice? What about people who don't sleep well on airplanes? When would these guys have time to rest?

Jump on a plane and come back to the United States right after the game? Hmm. Ever notice how most flights from the United States to Europe are at night, but most flights from Europe to the United States are in the early morning? There's a reason for that. When flying TO Europe, leaving at night allows people to connect from other cities. The opposite is true from flying FROM Europe: if you leave London at 8 pm, commercial jets are arriving in the middle of the night, which totally screws up the hub system for people connecting to other flights.

Buy and run a Concorde? Really? Yes, let's buy a supersonic jet that was put out of service several years ago because of safety and cost issues. It'll only cost several MILLION dollars per flight. And: Concordes are too freaking small anyway. They don't hold that many people.

Speaking of flights...the only jets that hold enough fuel to make a cross-Atlantic trip are jumbo jets: 777, 767, A380, and a couple of others. That's it. Do you guys have any idea how much it would cost owners to charter and fly such a large jet over to London?

And all of the people hollering about "get in, get out" of London haven't traveled much. There is no simple, easy, solution for jet lag. It can't be helped. There's nothing we can't do about it. You can't just "prepare at home", fly into London, and fly right back out without the human body and brain having to adjust. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. And, yes, flying rapidly through time zones IS an issue.

I love London. But an NFL team there is not logistically possible.

Hookem Horns
10-31-2012, 12:41 PM
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/360/146/76e.jpg

Specnatz
10-31-2012, 12:56 PM
Ok, I've tried to remain respectful, because, as I said, I love Brits. But your response is the most ridiculous thing I have read.

Play the same time they'd play in the US? Hmm. Ok. So, games in the US start at Noon, Central time, so they'd start at, what, 5 or 6, London time? Ok. So, when, exactly, would they arrive in London? The night before, after flying all night? When would they have time to practice? What about people who don't sleep well on airplanes? When would these guys have time to rest?

Jump on a plane and come back to the United States right after the game? Hmm. Ever notice how most flights from the United States to Europe are at night, but most flights from Europe to the United States are in the early morning? There's a reason for that. When flying TO Europe, leaving at night allows people to connect from other cities. The opposite is true from flying FROM Europe: if you leave London at 8 pm, commercial jets are arriving in the middle of the night, which totally screws up the hub system for people connecting to other flights.

Speaking of flights...the only jets that hold enough fuel to make a cross-Atlantic trip are jumbo jets: 777, 767, A380, and a couple of others. That's it. Do you guys have any idea how much it would cost owners to charter and fly such a large jet over to London?

And all of the people hollering about "get in, get out" of London haven't traveled much. There is no simple, easy, solution for jet lag. It can't be helped. There's nothing we can't do about it. You can't just "prepare at home", fly into London, and fly right back out without the human body and brain having to adjust. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. And, yes, flying rapidly through time zones IS an issue.

I love London. But an NFL team there is not logistically possible.

According to Ask.com ...

Typical fueling considerations in a 747-200 or 300 allow for 2200 pounds of fuel to be used for taxi to take off. A fully loaded aircraft will use 33,000 pounds during take off and climb to cruising altitude. During the first half of the flight, the aircraft will consume an average of 28,000 pounds of fuel per hour. The aircraft lightens as it burns fuel and at the end of the trip, the fuel consumption drops to about 21,000 pounds per hour. Descending and landing consume the least fuel, around 6000 pounds. The jet carries 52000 gallons.

Read more: How Much Fuel Does a 747 Jet Burn? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6171011_much-fuel-747-jet-burn_.html#ixzz2AtWARKBH

At a cost of about 3.24/gal
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/economics/fuel_monitor/Pages/index.aspx

Rounding up it is 4900 miles from Houston to London which is roughly a 10 hour flight. Where as a flight from New York to Seattle is 5 hours and just a bit longer from NY to SF.

You can calculate the fuel consumption and coat since

Oh and one last thing, since you love to assume .......

NOT EVERYONE SUFFERS JETLAG!!

By the way acting all high and mighty is not going to help you make your point just make folks ignore anything and everything you say.

houstonspartan
10-31-2012, 01:07 PM
According to Ask.com ...

Typical fueling considerations in a 747-200 or 300 allow for 2200 pounds of fuel to be used for taxi to take off. A fully loaded aircraft will use 33,000 pounds during take off and climb to cruising altitude. During the first half of the flight, the aircraft will consume an average of 28,000 pounds of fuel per hour. The aircraft lightens as it burns fuel and at the end of the trip, the fuel consumption drops to about 21,000 pounds per hour. Descending and landing consume the least fuel, around 6000 pounds. The jet carries 52000 gallons.

Read more: How Much Fuel Does a 747 Jet Burn? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6171011_much-fuel-747-jet-burn_.html#ixzz2AtWARKBH

At a cost of about 3.24/gal
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/economics/fuel_monitor/Pages/index.aspx

Rounding up it is 4900 miles from Houston to London which is roughly a 10 hour flight. Where as a flight from New York to Seattle is 5 hours and just a bit longer from NY to SF.

You can calculate the fuel consumption and coat since

Oh and one last thing, since you love to assume .......

NOT EVERYONE SUFFERS JETLAG!!

By the way acting all high and mighty is not going to help you make your point just make folks ignore anything and everything you say.

How am I acting high and mighty? I'm simply responding to messages where people say "rent a Concorde" and imply that flying overseas isn't that big of a deal. I am also speaking of my own, specific travel experiences, and the experiences of people that I know that travel.

No, not every one suffers from jet lag; however, quite a few people do. Flying, in general, wears a person down, whether they sleep on the plane or not. As I said, "there is no, simple, easy solution to jet lag."

Also, you can take a 737 from NY to SF or Seattle. You can't take a 737 across the pond.

LondonTex
10-31-2012, 01:11 PM
It's like a traveling circus...you go to see some funky circus acts and then the tents fold up and the circus moves on to another town.

That's what NFL is to Europe: A sideshow that comes to them a few times a year, something "different" to do for a change of pace. Novelty.

Now, for guys like LondonTex and others here like him...it's not a novelty act. It's something they love deeply and are heavily invested in watching and growing alongside. But LondonTex says he knows the UK fan base for NFL is not as vibrant or long-suffering as the handful of games' attendance numbers might show (hope I am not destroying what LondonTex meant to say, just re-wording a bit for illustrative purposes here).

To that extent, the NFL needs to give up. But they won't. For some reason or another, maybe they have analysts and marketing gurus who say so, they tend to think there's diamonds to be mined overseas. Basketball is by far an easier globalized American pro sport because of various reasons...and I think the NFL is getting caught up in a classic case of "Keeping up with the Joneses."

Yeah I agree with you for the most part. As for 'vibrant' , the fanbase is certainly vibrant within the UK NFL subculture (which let's be honest, is what it is - a niche sport in a country dominated by other sports) - it is thriving and growing in the UK and to me that's a good thing. However, I by no means believe the fanbase will be as vibrant or numerically feasible to EVER be able to sustain a franchise of our own, nor do I want it to.

However, I would say this - for the thousands of NFL fans (of all different teams) who come to watch the IS game each year, it is more than a just a sideshow but for many it is the pinnacle of a years worth of anticipation. They look forward to it for the entire year and can't wait for the next one as it gives them the chance to see live NFL, no matter who is playing. For the many non-NFL fans who are curious, yes, I'd agree - to them it would be nothing other than a sideshow.

Whilst I would prefer the games to be off-season games I can understand their excitement as I've felt it myself. I'm more sympathetic nowdays though as the thought of fans losing a home game is not right.

There has already been a slight paradigm shift in my own thinking regarding this. I started off by thinking 'yeah, it'd be great for the Texans to come over someday for a regular season game, but ONLY as the road team' ....then I started to think 'actually, no, I don't really want them volunteering even for that' ...now I'm starting to feel that the only type of game that we should have over here is a pre-season game or exhibition game of some other kind. I don't think its fair to the fans of the teams and as much as 'those up high' say it's good for the game, I just believe it's about money money money. The game is an American game, and should remain that way. I certainly wouldn't want my Soccer team giving up regular season games (whether home or away) to go play in the states. Pre season or exhibition games, fine, but not regular season. So - thats where I'm currently at. I'll still go watch the IS games when they come over next year and for the coming years as I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth and turn down the chance to see live NFL when it's already been decided - but if there was a chance to vote for or against the continuing of the IS game after the next 4 year contract finishes, I'd vote against. I'd certainly vote no to a UK franchise. I get your guys points on here and understand how many of you feel having lost the Oilers - I'm with you on this - like I said before though - I'm not concerned as I don't ever see it happening.

LondonTex
10-31-2012, 01:20 PM
One more thing guys - lets not fall out or let this discussion become too testy ...we're all Texans fans, (most of you for way longer than me - I'm still a babe when it comes to the Texans) ...yes, many of you are passionate on these issues but I think we all agree we don't want a UK franchise. It's a dumb idea.
:fans:v:fans:v:fans:v texanpride

GP
10-31-2012, 01:39 PM
One more thing guys - lets not fall out or let this discussion become too testy ...we're all Texans fans, (most of you for way longer than me - I'm still a babe when it comes to the Texans) ...yes, many of you are passionate on these issues but I think we all agree we don't want a UK franchise. It's a dumb idea.
:fans:v:fans:v:fans:v texanpride

Yes. Agree.

You've been a great contributor here already, mate. Keep up the good work.

LondonTex
10-31-2012, 01:58 PM
Yes. Agree.

You've been a great contributor here already, mate. Keep up the good work.

Thanks bud :handshake:

mattieuk
07-13-2013, 02:07 AM
I've posted this in the 'Soccer Forum' already...however, just to add new spice to the debate, Shahid Khan (the owner of the Jacksonville Jaguars) has bought (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23297785) English Premier League soccer team Fulham FC.

Interestingly, this could be seen as an attempt from an NFL owner getting a foot into the London sporting market - especially as the owner is from a team often speculated as a potential relocation team.

Hookem Horns
07-16-2013, 05:14 PM
I've posted this in the 'Soccer Forum' already...however, just to add new spice to the debate, Shahid Khan (the owner of the Jacksonville Jaguars) has bought (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23297785) English Premier League soccer team Fulham FC.

Interestingly, this could be seen as an attempt from an NFL owner getting a foot into the London sporting market - especially as the owner is from a team often speculated as a potential relocation team.

If it happens I think the Jags have the strongest possibility, however there are already NFL owners that own teams in the EPL. The Glaziers own Manchester United. There might be more.

Also, it doesn't appear as if Khan is preparing to move any time soon going off of that crazy billion (ok, not a billion but you get the point) dollar video screen he is putting into that stadium.

TEXANRED
07-16-2013, 05:49 PM
It's time for Kraft to STFU.

mattieuk
07-16-2013, 06:47 PM
If it happens I think the Jags have the strongest possibility, however there are already NFL owners that own teams in the EPL. The Glaziers own Manchester United. There might be more.

Also, it doesn't appear as if Khan is preparing to move any time soon going off of that crazy billion (ok, not a billion but you get the point) dollar video screen he is putting into that stadium.

Oh yeah - fully appreciate that - just thought it was strongly coindicental that the owner of a franchise that has been rumour to be the front runner for transatlantic relocation has the owner buy a different sports team in the supposed new market.

Didn't know about a big screen going in there - don't really see the point - don't all the 350 fans per game that show up get front row seats anyway?

drs23
07-18-2013, 12:45 PM
It's time for Kraft to STFU.

Yeah, lemme know when that happens.

It ain't gonna.

Tearstain
07-20-2013, 04:47 AM
For once a subject I can be of use for you all :)

As some of you may know I am from the UK Sheffield.

I think it will be a big mistake to have a London Team.
What you have to understand is the UK fans are very loyal to the team they picked when watching the NFL.

At the moment we use this game as a sort of "fans expo" we all meet up with other NFL fans.

To have a specific London team you will be asking people to ditch their loyalty and start again.
The only fans would be new ones to the game who have not chosen a team yet.

What might work is a European team. That plays home games once in each country. So the fans can then still use it as an expo meet.

Don't underestimate a Brits loyalty to their team. Once chosen there is no going back.

Just like me with the Oilers when they moved. My loyalty is with Houston. Sorry but you're stuck with me and you wont catch me ever supporting a London based team.

More chance of you all going to support Dallas :gun:

OzzO
11-22-2013, 07:51 AM
NFL is thinking London Jaguars? (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/nfl-eyes-london-s-olympic-stadium-for-franchise-possibly-jags-112113)

The NFL's International Committee is involved in talks to bring a franchise, perhaps the Jacksonville Jaguars, to London, possibly as soon as 2017, sources told FOXSports.com.....

....Here is the math: Skeptics believe 80,000 tickets eight times a year is the magic number, but Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shahid Khan, commissioner Roger Goodell and the NFL international committee know they need to sell around 432,000 golden tickets per season.

This can be reached even with a smaller seating capacity eight times a year and when you add the vast amount of pounds and euros fans will be spending on merchandise each year here is your money-spinning London franchise. The Jag-you-ars, as Austin Powers would say....

TEXANRED
11-22-2013, 09:25 AM
NFL is thinking London Jaguars? (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/nfl-eyes-london-s-olympic-stadium-for-franchise-possibly-jags-112113)

So who will take the Jags place in the AFC South?

Hervoyel
11-22-2013, 09:30 AM
So who will take the Jags place in the AFC South?

Miami Dolphins. Moves the London Jaguars (total ****ing BS move) to the AFC East and closer to their divisional opponents. Gets the Dolphins into the AFC South where they probably belong anyway.

I doubt their fans even give a damn about division rivalries at this point. they probably just will be grateful to get away from being ass-pounded by the Patriots twice a year.

TEXANRED
11-22-2013, 10:30 AM
Miami Dolphins. Moves the London Jaguars (total ****ing BS move) to the AFC East and closer to their divisional opponents. Gets the Dolphins into the AFC South where they probably belong anyway.

I doubt their fans even give a damn about division rivalries at this point. they probably just will be grateful to get away from being ass-pounded by the Patriots twice a year.

This makes sense, and that's why it will not happen. The Texans are going to have to make a trip to London every year where our games will be played at 2am Monday morning.

How's this for a theory: The Jags get moved to London only to find out that they are no longer in the NFL but the Keystone franchise of the new NFLE and at the same time the NFL expands back to 32 putting the new franchise in L.A. thereby erasing two colossal mistakes in one fell swoop.

IDEXAN
11-22-2013, 11:18 AM
Just curious, but all things considered if the NFL is serious about going international how is London a
more appealing option than Mexico City ?

TEXANRED
11-22-2013, 11:22 AM
Just curious, but all things considered if the NFL is serious about going international how is London a
more appealing option than Mexico City ?

Not as many drug cartels kidnapping people and leaving dead bodies littering its streets streets over there in London like there is in Mexico.

Hervoyel
11-22-2013, 02:15 PM
Not as many drug cartels kidnapping people and leaving dead bodies littering its streets streets over there in London like there is in Mexico.

Yeah, Tailgating just doesn't work when you're trying to party near a freeway overpass with human bodies dangling from it.

If I were an NFL player I'd have serious reservations about living in or playing in Mexico.

mattieuk
11-23-2013, 03:39 AM
Just curious, but all things considered if the NFL is serious about going international how is London a
more appealing option than Mexico City ?

If you are looking for a North American market outside of the USA, I think Toronto would be the best bet. Makes much more sense than London...

IDEXAN
11-23-2013, 08:49 AM
Not as many drug cartels kidnapping people and leaving dead bodies littering its streets streets over there in London like there is in Mexico.
OK there's that, but even though Rio de Janeiro also has severe criminal activity to include drug cartels they are scheduled to have both the next World Cup & the next Olympics. It's the 21st century that we are now in and we've learned how to meet all kinds of logistical and security challenges for these international events attended by large crowds. And don't forget, London also has had some extreme security challenges: remember the Islamic terrorist attacks there in 2005 ? To my knowledge Mexico city has yet to have any such problems ?
On the plus side Mexico City has so much going for it as it's this continents largest city, only a bit over 2 hours flying time from Houston and not much farther from LA, and it's CST.

Hookem Horns
11-23-2013, 11:38 AM
Just curious, but all things considered if the NFL is serious about going international how is London a
more appealing option than Mexico City ?

Would you rather have people spending pesos or pounds for your product?

infantrycak
11-23-2013, 01:42 PM
Would you rather have people spending pesos or pounds for your product?

You can exchange to dollars either way at the current rates so what is the problem?

Dan B.
11-23-2013, 01:48 PM
You can exchange to dollars either way at the current rates so what is the problem?

I believe the British Pound is still the most stable currency on earth is it not? Hell you can exchange gold and bitcoins for cash at their current rates. I'd rather have gold though.

mattieuk
11-23-2013, 02:11 PM
OK there's that, but even though Rio de Janeiro also has severe criminal activity to include drug cartels they are scheduled to have both the next World Cup & the next Olympics. It's the 21st century that we are now in and we've learned how to meet all kinds of logistical and security challenges for these international events attended by large crowds. And don't forget, London also has had some extreme security challenges: remember the Islamic terrorist attacks there in 2005 ? To my knowledge Mexico city has yet to have any such problems ?
On the plus side Mexico City has so much going for it as it's this continents largest city, only a bit over 2 hours flying time from Houston and not much farther from LA, and it's CST.

I'm not arguing for London at all, but some of those points don't stand up.

Do we not let the Giants and Jets have New York as a base because of 9/11? Should Dallas have a football team after JFK? Security issues on a week to week basis would be infinately easier to deal with in London, which on any given Saturday deals with up to 150,000 soccer fans descending on the city. Getting a city like Rio togethrt for a month, whilst throwing billions of dollars at a problem is easy compared to having the tried and tested infrastructure of a city like London.

Completely with you on flying time. That is why I think Toronto makes much more sense.

infantrycak
11-23-2013, 02:15 PM
I believe the British Pound is still the most stable currency on earth is it not? Hell you can exchange gold and bitcoins for cash at their current rates. I'd rather have gold though.

Again, so what? It is a simple issue either way to convert.

Not getting off into bit coins which aren't issued by any country or gold which isn't used for transactions of this nature.

Dan B.
11-23-2013, 02:21 PM
Again, so what? It is a simple issue either way to convert.

Not getting off into bit coins which aren't issued by any country or gold which isn't used for transactions of this nature.

Fair enough we will stick to currency exchange. My point is that the pound is more stable. When you are a millionaire player or even a billionaire owner, it makes sense to have your money in a currency that will hold in value over the years. Personally if I could have the same amount of money in pounds, dollars, or pesos I'm picking the pound for that reason. It's more likely to still be there.

infantrycak
11-23-2013, 03:25 PM
Fair enough we will stick to currency exchange. My point is that the pound is more stable. When you are a millionaire player or even a billionaire owner, it makes sense to have your money in a currency that will hold in value over the years. Personally if I could have the same amount of money in pounds, dollars, or pesos I'm picking the pound for that reason. It's more likely to still be there.

I don't think this involves player or owner money in a significant fashion. Contracts would be done in dollars because of cap requirements. The NFL is going to hold and distribute in dollars. Anything subject to revenue splitting will have to be converted to dollars. So really what we are talking about is handling of money from tickets, merchandise sales, concessions and operating expenses. Those are all transitory and readily converted. Heck if the owner in Mexico wanted he could take all his pesos ticket sales money and convert it to pounds. You aren't stuck with what you started with.

I understand arguments like crime, better sales for suites, where more TV revenue would result, etc. but I don't see currency as a stumbling block for either.

2012Champs
11-23-2013, 03:36 PM
OK there's that, but even though Rio de Janeiro also has severe criminal activity to include drug cartels they are scheduled to have both the next World Cup & the next Olympics. It's the 21st century that we are now in and we've learned how to meet all kinds of logistical and security challenges for these international events attended by large crowds. And don't forget, London also has had some extreme security challenges: remember the Islamic terrorist attacks there in 2005 ? To my knowledge Mexico city has yet to have any such problems ?
On the plus side Mexico City has so much going for it as it's this continents largest city, only a bit over 2 hours flying time from Houston and not much farther from LA, and it's CST.


I read a good article the other day about crime in Mexico compared to other countries. I will see if I can find it because it certainly made it seem as though the crime in Mexico isn't nearly as bad as the perception

2012Champs
11-23-2013, 03:39 PM
I don't think this involves player or owner money in a significant fashion. Contracts would be done in dollars because of cap requirements. The NFL is going to hold and distribute in dollars. Anything subject to revenue splitting will have to be converted to dollars. So really what we are talking about is handling of money from tickets, merchandise sales, concessions and operating expenses. Those are all transitory and readily converted. Heck if the owner in Mexico wanted he could take all his pesos ticket sales money and convert it to pounds. You aren't stuck with what you started with.

I understand arguments like crime, better sales for suites, where more TV revenue would result, etc. but I don't see currency as a stumbling block for either.


The currency isn't an issue but it is something I've seen many people get hung up on. As you point out players income staying in USD keeps most of "their" potential issues out. Even if that wasn't the case it comes down to simple ratios

Showtime100
11-23-2013, 03:49 PM
If you are looking for a North American market outside of the USA, I think Toronto would be the best bet. Makes much more sense than London...

Or how about your town of Vancouver?...lol. At least that way Seattle would have a real turf rival for the first time in history. :gamer:

mattieuk
11-23-2013, 06:39 PM
Or how about your town of Vancouver?...lol. At least that way Seattle would have a real turf rival for the first time in history. :gamer:

Whilst I would love it (I think - it'd be a bit weird having a genuine second team behind the Texans who I'd be socially expected to get more amped up for...), to be frank Vancouver doesn't deserve it (and doesn't really have the stadia for it - BC Place has just been redeveloped for $500 million and is still under 60,000 seats, which barely ever sell out for sporting events).

Seattle is just a phenomenal sports city. I've not managed to hit many places in the USA for sports, but having experienced their college football fans, their NFL fans and their MLS fans - it is absolutely insane down there. They could sell out any of the major sports at ease.

If you want an under the radar NFL base for Canada I would nominate Regina, Saskatchewan! They are by far the most passionate loyal and 'into' it Canadian Football city - it's like a high school football following fused with professional football. Even though their population is 180,000 people, I think they'd still have a decent shot at selling out a 70,000-80,000 stadium. Maybe it is because there is nothing else to do out there, but man do they love their football (if anyone is getting it on their TV schedule, tomorrow they are hosting the Grey Cup - Canada's Superbowl - it should be absolutely mental in Regina).

infantrycak
11-23-2013, 09:31 PM
Or how about your town of Vancouver?...lol. At least that way Seattle would have a real turf rival for the first time in history. :gamer:

It appears Vancouver already has their hands full:

Known as the Hollywood of the North, Vancouver is one of the few destinations where one can ski and golf on the same day. These are just two of the many wonderful things to know about Vancouver. Here's another one: incidents of public masturbation are on the rise.

Link (http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/11/22/Public-Masturbation-on-the-Rise-in-Vancouver)

Carr Bombed
11-23-2013, 11:11 PM
It appears Vancouver already has their hands full:



Link (http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/11/22/Public-Masturbation-on-the-Rise-in-Vancouver)

Geez, It sounds like a dream vacation spot for Hopkins this offseason. Ski, Golf, and then um.. skeet shooting.

When our rookie was a DB, he used take vacations south of the border to watch cockfighting, maybe our rookie WR will go north of the border to do some...

Dan B.
11-24-2013, 02:17 AM
I don't think this involves player or owner money in a significant fashion. Contracts would be done in dollars because of cap requirements. The NFL is going to hold and distribute in dollars. Anything subject to revenue splitting will have to be converted to dollars. So really what we are talking about is handling of money from tickets, merchandise sales, concessions and operating expenses. Those are all transitory and readily converted. Heck if the owner in Mexico wanted he could take all his pesos ticket sales money and convert it to pounds. You aren't stuck with what you started with.

I understand arguments like crime, better sales for suites, where more TV revenue would result, etc. but I don't see currency as a stumbling block for either.

I agree that it's not just players and owners. It's the citizens of the city/country the franchise is located in. You want a team that is on firm financial footing and whose fans will have the constant income to support their team. What is the owner of Mexico's team going to do though when he tries to convert his pesos ticket sales money and only gets half the revenue he would have the year before? Or when their economy craters and no one can afford to buy t-shirts or tickets anymore? A stable economy helps pro teams immensely. That's why teams struggled in Detroit for so long and why the Bills are threatening to leave. There's a reason that American owners from the Glazers to Khan to the Red Sox also own EPL teams rather than teams in Mexico's top league. We don't see many owners that own pro teams in Mexico and America (I can only think of Chivas and Chivas USA in the MLS). And the Mexican teams don't have nearly as solid of a financial footing as teams in England.

I also think that the main factor is going to be TV revenue. The NFL has much smaller potential growth in tv revenue in the states. The opportunity for growth is all overseas -- and Europe has far more disposable income than Latin America.

welsh texan
11-24-2013, 05:10 AM
How much do top end sports tickets sell for at face value in Canada and Mexico City? Because the average price in London will be around £75 I'd have thought. Just to do some hazy maths around that it means wembley rakes in around $9 million per game in ticket sales alone.

How many pesos can you charge for an event in Mexico City regardless of how easy it may be to convert it to dollars?

I think the main problem here, is that because people are so against it, they are trying to make economic and logistical arguments against it. But some of the most successful business men in the world have the inside line on years of market testing and toe dipping and they see past it for good reason.

Fulham are in need of a new stadium btw, as are Chelsea. I'm not for the move, just realistic on the potential success of it for the nfl as long as the fans change team, ( I won't, but I'm sure plenty of new fans would take them up).

2012Champs
11-24-2013, 05:00 PM
I agree that it's not just players and owners. It's the citizens of the city/country the franchise is located in. You want a team that is on firm financial footing and whose fans will have the constant income to support their team. What is the owner of Mexico's team going to do though when he tries to convert his pesos ticket sales money and only gets half the revenue he would have the year before? Or when their economy craters and no one can afford to buy t-shirts or tickets anymore? A stable economy helps pro teams immensely. That's why teams struggled in Detroit for so long and why the Bills are threatening to leave. There's a reason that American owners from the Glazers to Khan to the Red Sox also own EPL teams rather than teams in Mexico's top league. We don't see many owners that own pro teams in Mexico and America (I can only think of Chivas and Chivas USA in the MLS). And the Mexican teams don't have nearly as solid of a financial footing as teams in England.

I also think that the main factor is going to be TV revenue. The NFL has much smaller potential growth in tv revenue in the states. The opportunity for growth is all overseas -- and Europe has far more disposable income than Latin America.



How much do you know about the economics of Mexico City? It's has good economic growth, ranks pretty high in terms of GDP vs other cities in the world. It ranks 19th in the world in the number of millionaires and 7th in multimillionaires. Your comments about Detroit lead me it believe you don't know much about MC and it's economic situation. Detroit was not diverse in terms of its industries, peaked at less than 2mm in population vs MC nearly 9 million. MC could more than support a NFL team as they have plenty of people making good wages to spend they money

Dan B.
11-24-2013, 05:20 PM
How much do you know about the economics of Mexico City? It's has good economic growth, ranks pretty high in terms of GDP vs other cities in the world. It ranks 19th in the world in the number of millionaires and 7th in multimillionaires. Your comments about Detroit lead me it believe you don't know much about MC and it's economic situation. Detroit was not diverse in terms of its industries, peaked at less than 2mm in population vs MC nearly 9 million. MC could more than support a NFL team as they have plenty of people making good wages to spend they money

We had another thread about this recently. Just to make it clear, I'll go ahead and reiterate my thoughts on it.

I'm not against a team in Mexico City eventually. I just think it's fairly obvious that London is the most coveted international market, and I don't think the NFL is considering Mexico City at all. The NFL tried to purchase a long term lease at Wembley already, they play multiple games a year in London (they haven't been back to Mexico in nearly a decade and have shown no signs of playing a game there in the near future), and several owners own teams in both countries. I also think that the NFL has done well in London -- much better than I expected. I think it could easily succeed.

TBH I think the NBA will be going international too. I'm not sure how they would make it work but basically a European Division of 4-5 teams.

ziggy29
11-24-2013, 05:21 PM
It's just too much to expect of players on a London team to make that transatlantic trip 8 times a year, when other teams have to do that (at most) once, if at all. I can't imagine many players wanting to deal with the travel that a London team would require.

Dan B.
11-24-2013, 05:33 PM
It's just too much to expect of players on a London team to make that transatlantic trip 8 times a year, when other teams have to do that (at most) once, if at all. I can't imagine many players wanting to deal with the travel that a London team would require.

People said the same thing in 1946 when the NFL moved a team to Los Angeles and there was no other team west of the Mississippi. I think a first class international flight today is a bit less strenuous than a train ride from Pittsburgh to LA in the '40's. By 1950 the NFL had another team in San Francisco. I could see them doing the same thing in Europe and going to Berlin or Frankfurt eventually.

2012Champs
11-25-2013, 12:15 AM
We had another thread about this recently. Just to make it clear, I'll go ahead and reiterate my thoughts on it.

I'm not against a team in Mexico City eventually. I just think it's fairly obvious that London is the most coveted international market, and I don't think the NFL is considering Mexico City at all. The NFL tried to purchase a long term lease at Wembley already, they play multiple games a year in London (they haven't been back to Mexico in nearly a decade and have shown no signs of playing a game there in the near future), and several owners own teams in both countries. I also think that the NFL has done well in London -- much better than I expected. I think it could easily succeed.

TBH I think the NBA will be going international too. I'm not sure how they would make it work but basically a European Division of 4-5 teams.



While the nfl might not be looking at Mexico nearly every one of your arguments about business or economics made little sense

Dan B.
11-25-2013, 01:07 AM
While the nfl might not be looking at Mexico nearly every one of your arguments about business or economics made little sense

lol ok dude:

Poverty and income disparity has been a persistent problem in Mexico, and while the recent exponential growth of the economy has caused an overall fall in the percentage of the population living in conditions of poverty, this fall has not been proportional to the general growth. Currently 17% of the population lives below Mexico's own poverty line, making Mexico rank behind Kazakhstan, Bulgaria and Thailand

A single person in Mexico has a net worth equal to eight percent of GDP: Carlos Slim.[40] Additionally, only ten percent of Mexicans represent 25% of Mexican GDP. A smaller group, 3.5%, represent 12.5% of Mexican GDP.[41]

According to the OECD, Mexico is the country with the second highest degree of economic disparity between the extremely poor and extremely rich, after Chile - although this gap has been diminishing over the last decade. The bottom ten percent on the income rung disposes of 1.36% of the country's resources, whereas the upper 10% dispose of almost 36%. OECD also notes that Mexico's budgeted expenses for poverty alleviation and social development is only about a third of the OECD average - both in absolute and relative numbers.[38] According to the World Bank, in 2004, 17.6% of Mexico's population lived in extreme poverty, while 21% lived in moderated poverty.[42]

Yea that sounds like a nice stable economy. Have you ever been to Azteca? I have, for a Club America game. The stadium was maybe half full, and my host (who lives in the District) said the stadium never sells out unless the Mexican National team is playing. BTW he has a point. They average 39,000 fans and 37% capacity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_home_attendances_in_non-European_club_football) The other major local team, Cruz Azul, averages 25,000 a game. If all those millionaires in Mexico City won't support their hometown futbol clubs why on earth would they support an NFL franchise?

On Forbes' list of Best Paid Cities (http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/24/best-paid-cities-lifestyle-real-estate-worlds-income-salary.html) London finished 19th. They didn't list Mexico City, but said this:

But two other cosmopolitan North American cities, Montreal and Mexico City, didn’t make the cut–in fact, Mexico City was one of the lowest-earning of all those surveyed, beating only Delhi, Manila, Jakarta and Mumbai in wages earned. The top 20 includes one city each from the Asian and Australian continents–Tokyo and Sydney.

2012Champs
11-25-2013, 11:11 AM
lol ok dude:


Well much of your argument was around currency however I assure you that many businesses around the world do business in other countries where currencies are different and econs might not be as stable. FWIW how many econs have been stable in the last 10 years? Those businesses are often times much larger than a single NFL team and are able to manage or hedge currency issues.





Yea that sounds like a nice stable economy. Have you ever been to Azteca? I have, for a Club America game. The stadium was maybe half full, and my host (who lives in the District) said the stadium never sells out unless the Mexican National team is playing. BTW he has a point. They average 39,000 fans and 37% capacity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_home_attendances_in_non-European_club_football) The other major local team, Cruz Azul, averages 25,000 a game. If all those millionaires in Mexico City won't support their hometown futbol clubs why on earth would they support an NFL franchise?

On Forbes' list of Best Paid Cities (http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/24/best-paid-cities-lifestyle-real-estate-worlds-income-salary.html) London finished 19th. They didn't list Mexico City, but said this:





Again I dont know if the folks in Mexico City would support a team. The economics of Mexico City would be able to support a team however. Those are two totally different issues can vs will. Even with a poor distribution on wealth/income with a metro population of 20MM+ it would not take much to support a team. Luxury Brands do well in Mexico so thats all it would take from a marketing standpoint from the NFL. If it is seen as a highend/luxury deal it could very well work

welsh texan
11-26-2013, 02:44 PM
Well much of your argument was around currency however I assure you that many businesses around the world do business in other countries where currencies are different and econs might not be as stable. FWIW how many econs have been stable in the last 10 years? Those businesses are often times much larger than a single NFL team and are able to manage or hedge currency issues.








Again I dont know if the folks in Mexico City would support a team. The economics of Mexico City would be able to support a team however. Those are two totally different issues can vs will. Even with a poor distribution on wealth/income with a metro population of 20MM+ it would not take much to support a team. Luxury Brands do well in Mexico so thats all it would take from a marketing standpoint from the NFL. If it is seen as a highend/luxury deal it could very well work

You honestly think you know better than Robert Kraft when it comes to business?

Arsenals cheapest ticket - £62 (~$100) average attendance 60,000 (capacity)
Cruz azul average ticket - MX€70 (~$5) average attendance 25,000 (below capacity)

How the hell do you think Mexico City can compete?

The nfl owners, by large a bunch of self made billionaires, don't think so, why do you?

I'm not even in favour of the idea of a London franchise I just can't believe the strange arguments made to try and bring it down.

2012Champs
11-26-2013, 02:59 PM
You honestly think you know better than Robert Kraft when it comes to business?

Arsenals cheapest ticket - £62 (~$100) average attendance 60,000 (capacity)
Cruz azul average ticket - MX€70 (~$5) average attendance 25,000 (below capacity)

How the hell do you think Mexico City can compete?

The nfl owners, by large a bunch of self made billionaires, don't think so, why do you?

I'm not even in favour of the idea of a London franchise I just can't believe the strange arguments made to try and bring it down.


I never attempted to make the case for Mexico City over London. Mexico City has the population and an economy that could support a team. Would London be better? Sure I never said otherwise

welsh texan
11-26-2013, 03:36 PM
I never attempted to make the case for Mexico City over London. Mexico City has the population and an economy that could support a team. Would London be better? Sure I never said otherwise

How on earth would an nfl franchise survive on 8 games worth of 25 thousand people paying $5 each?

That would come to $1,000,000 in tix per year? Would the owners really dilute their profit for such a tiny amount just to say they were expanding internationally? I really doubt it.

infantrycak
11-26-2013, 04:56 PM
How on earth would an nfl franchise survive on 8 games worth of 25 thousand people paying $5 each?

That would come to $1,000,000 in tix per year? Would the owners really dilute their profit for such a tiny amount just to say they were expanding internationally? I really doubt it.

It's a false comparison. You are talking about not the top league in the sport in a sport saturated with a million leagues around. More importantly ticket sales aren't the major component of NFL revenue. Gross receipts on tickets for the Texans are about $75 mil per year which doesn't even cover the $120 mil in player salaries. The money in the NFL is in the TV deals. ESPN pays $2 bil per year for one game a week. That's $62.5 mil per team. So the big issue is viewership such that people will buy ad time.

Dan B.
11-26-2013, 08:14 PM
It's a false comparison. You are talking about not the top league in the sport in a sport saturated with a million leagues around. More importantly ticket sales aren't the major component of NFL revenue. Gross receipts on tickets for the Texans are about $75 mil per year which doesn't even cover the $120 mil in player salaries. The money in the NFL is in the TV deals. ESPN pays $2 bil per year for one game a week. That's $62.5 mil per team. So the big issue is viewership such that people will buy ad time.

Don't the EPL's TV contracts pay more per team than any league on earth? I agree that the lion's share of the revenue will be from TV. But advertisers want to hit an audience with the disposable income to purchase their product.

infantrycak
11-26-2013, 09:18 PM
I agree that the lion's share of the revenue will be from TV. But advertisers want to hit an audience with the disposable income to purchase their product.

You trying to sell that Mexico is too destitute to buy Budweiser, Coca Cola, Doritos, Wheat Thins and Taco Bell (or their market place equivalents)? - you know Super Bowl advertisers.

Which is more viable is something beyond our knowledge. All I have said is Mexico City is greatly more practical and should not be dismissed out of hand.

2012Champs
11-26-2013, 09:52 PM
How on earth would an nfl franchise survive on 8 games worth of 25 thousand people paying $5 each?

That would come to $1,000,000 in tix per year? Would the owners really dilute their profit for such a tiny amount just to say they were expanding internationally? I really doubt it.


I'm not sure why you are using 25k and 5

Dan B.
11-26-2013, 09:54 PM
You trying to sell that Mexico is too destitute to buy Budweiser, Coca Cola, Doritos, Wheat Thins and Taco Bell (or their market place equivalents)? - you know Super Bowl advertisers.

Which is more viable is something beyond our knowledge. All I have said is Mexico City is greatly more practical and should not be dismissed out of hand.

There's also Apple, Samsung, Audi, Volkswagen, Chrysler, etc. etc.

Televisa & TV Azteca paid $100 million for domestic broadcasting rights to the World Cup in Mexico. (http://www.businessinsider.com/mexico-world-cup-elimination-scenario-2013-10) Univision paid $325 million just for the Spanish language rights in the US for the next 2. Why would FIFA get more than twice as much for the secondary rights here than the primary rights in Mexico?

United States 29,056
United Kingdom 23,182
Mexico 4,456

Oh yeah -- that's why. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income)

Also, I don't agree with the practicality argument. As I've said a few times I think the travel complaints are overblown, and I think England is less of a culture shock than Mexico. In my experience it's much more similar to the US than Mexico is. Both of them obviously speak the language for one, but they are very close to each other in other ways as well. The same albums tend to sell in both countries. British TV shows American TV shows at night. There are American chains like Starbuck's & McDonald's everywhere. Their news revolves around US politics and culture. While these things are still noticeable in Mexico they are much less prevalent. The British are very closely aligned with America and always have been.

HJam72
11-27-2013, 11:42 AM
Plus, when they come to play here, we can have a guy ride the length of the field on a horse yelling, "The British are coming!"


Ya gotta consider the important stuff. :fingergun:

Hervoyel
11-27-2013, 01:15 PM
There's also Apple, Samsung, Audi, Volkswagen, Chrysler, etc. etc.

Televisa & TV Azteca paid $100 million for domestic broadcasting rights to the World Cup in Mexico. (http://www.businessinsider.com/mexico-world-cup-elimination-scenario-2013-10) Univision paid $325 million just for the Spanish language rights in the US for the next 2. Why would FIFA get more than twice as much for the secondary rights here than the primary rights in Mexico?


Oh yeah -- that's why. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income)

Also, I don't agree with the practicality argument. As I've said a few times I think the travel complaints are overblown, and I think England is less of a culture shock than Mexico. In my experience it's much more similar to the US than Mexico is. Both of them obviously speak the language for one, but they are very close to each other in other ways as well. The same albums tend to sell in both countries. British TV shows American TV shows at night. There are American chains like Starbuck's & McDonald's everywhere. Their news revolves around US politics and culture. While these things are still noticeable in Mexico they are much less prevalent. The British are very closely aligned with America and always have been.

I've even heard that they've got "eternal dibs" on being the 51st state. Israel apparently is disputing this but even so, it's going to the UK. Not a doubt in my mind

:kitten:

2012Champs
11-27-2013, 04:14 PM
There's also Apple, Samsung, Audi, Volkswagen, Chrysler, etc. etc.

Televisa & TV Azteca paid $100 million for domestic broadcasting rights to the World Cup in Mexico. (http://www.businessinsider.com/mexico-world-cup-elimination-scenario-2013-10) Univision paid $325 million just for the Spanish language rights in the US for the next 2. Why would FIFA get more than twice as much for the secondary rights here than the primary rights in Mexico?


Oh yeah -- that's why. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income)

Also, I don't agree with the practicality argument. As I've said a few times I think the travel complaints are overblown, and I think England is less of a culture shock than Mexico. In my experience it's much more similar to the US than Mexico is. Both of them obviously speak the language for one, but they are very close to each other in other ways as well. The same albums tend to sell in both countries. British TV shows American TV shows at night. There are American chains like Starbuck's & McDonald's everywhere. Their news revolves around US politics and culture. While these things are still noticeable in Mexico they are much less prevalent. The British are very closely aligned with America and always have been.



Median income is a number you have to be careful with. For one its a median number for an entire country but the number for Mexico City would be higher I have no doubt. Also MC's metro area has a population over 20MM which means you wouldnt have to capture nearly as much "market share" as you would in a city that has 3-4MM

In your comparisons of england/us/mexico you list language and then list music and tv as though thats 3 things when it really all is language based.

Second the number of MCD in the US is 18,600 vs England at 1250 and Mexico at 500+ so neither are more like the US in that aspect. The travel would be far easier for a team in Mexico and the numbers work in favor of England it really is that simple

Dan B.
11-27-2013, 05:16 PM
Median income is a number you have to be careful with. For one its a median number for an entire country but the number for Mexico City would be higher I have no doubt. Also MC's metro area has a population over 20MM which means you wouldnt have to capture nearly as much "market share" as you would in a city that has 3-4MM

In your comparisons of england/us/mexico you list language and then list music and tv as though thats 3 things when it really all is language based.

Second the number of MCD in the US is 18,600 vs England at 1250 and Mexico at 500+ so neither are more like the US in that aspect. The travel would be far easier for a team in Mexico and the numbers work in favor of England it really is that simple

We were talking about TV advertising rates. If Mexico or England were to get a team, they would show the team throughout the country wouldn't they? And if we're talking about the average income for the cities of London vs Mexico City you should probably know that Londoners make an average of 45,000 euros (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union#Regional_variation) (that's $62,000) a year. There are 14 million people in London by the way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_by_population), not 3-4 million. It would be the largest home market of any team in the NFL not in New York. Inner London (which has 3.2 million people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_London)) has an average income of $110,000.

I'm not saying that travel wouldn't be easier to Mexico -- of course it would. I just think it's overblown. I don't think it's insurmountable to tell a guy in his 20's to live overseas and make 8 cross Atlantic trips a year as part of his job these days.

You are missing my point by just counting up the number of restaurants. But since we are you left off Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales, which have 160 franchises themselves. Mexico has twice as many people as the UK; ergo there are around 5 times the McDonald's per capita in the UK. Also the McDonald's that I have seen in Mexico tend to be in areas that cater to American tourists. Not so in England. Probably because Mexico is 8 times as large (you can get from one side of the UK to the other in a little over an hour plane flight -- the whole place is smaller than Michigan).

And yeah -- the music and sitcoms do share a common language. That's the point. But it's much bigger than that. You can get a burger and fries almost anywhere in England, not just at McDonald's. Rick Perry was running for the GOP nomination when I was in the UK, and people would ask about him when I told them I was from Texas. I wore my Rockets shirt one day and got into a friendly discussion in a Fulham bar with a Sikh from Glasgow about whether the Rockets deserved their titles.