NFL Team in London
-
@everlastingxxx said:
I dont have an issue with putting a team in London. I get it, they want to go global much like the way soccer owns the world. There is alot more money to be gained globally. Now putting a Super Bowl in London i would be opposed.
Their desire to go global is all about additional revenue generation. I don't see how relocating a current team to London will result in a significant increase in revenue. Certainly not an increase worth all the debate. If the NFL truly wants to become a global game they need to go all in. They need to form a full division in Europe with a minimum of 6 teams. Playing each other gives them 10 games and then the remaining 6 split between the US and Europe. Although much like prior expansion teams the talent would be watered down over time it would improve. This would generate significant revenue and make the league more global.
Their desire to go global is all about additional revenue generation. I don't see how relocating a current team to London will result in a significant increase in revenue. Certainly not an increase worth all the debate. If the NFL truly wants to become a global game they need to go all in. They need to form a full division in Europe with a minimum of 6 teams. Playing each other gives them 10 games and then the remaining 6 split between the US and Europe. Although much like prior expansion teams the talent would be watered down over time it would improve. This would generate significant revenue and make the league more global.
The NFL Europe failed some years back. Didn't they figure it out?
Or, maybe they are thinking "well, the NASL failed" and now soccer has come back with the MSL, maybe our failure there once can be turned around with a new league.
But yea, it would have to be a whole new league.
Sorry, the greed is palpable in this notion.
-
It seems like some on here are trying to make giant issues out of relatively minor ones. As much as some want to pound their chest and shout "'Murica" I think it makes business sense to get your product out there. Especially if the demand is high, which it is
It seems like some on here are trying to make giant issues out of relatively minor ones. As much as some want to pound their chest and shout "'Murica" I think it makes business sense to get your product out there. Especially if the demand is high, which it is
Then put your product in LA, San Antonio, Portland, Salt Lake. I guarandamntee you that the demand for NFL football is higher in those locations than it is in London, Manchester and Paris.
It is a damn sight higher in Birmingham Alabama than it is in Birmingham England.
...and would make the NFL more money probably.
-
I'm going to start giving them bus tickets to NY just for you Mik
'they' were here before i was.
why don't we just claim mexico as an incorporated territory of the US? that way the americans who want to move to cabo san lucas can get in their uhaul and go and those from tijuana who want to move to n. platte, NE can do so w/o passports etc. take over their gov't and military, more jobs for both and no more corruption.
HA!
Lol that would be the day. I like how you say no more corruption, like the US government isn't. It's just done differently over here'they' were here before i was.
why don't we just claim mexico as an incorporated territory of the US? that way the americans who want to move to cabo san lucas can get in their uhaul and go and those from tijuana who want to move to n. platte, NE can do so w/o passports etc. take over their gov't and military, more jobs for both and no more corruption.
HA!
-
It seems like some on here are trying to make giant issues out of relatively minor ones. As much as some want to pound their chest and shout "'Murica" I think it makes business sense to get your product out there. Especially if the demand is high, which it is
You're a fucking idiot.
You're a fucking idiot.
So taking emotion out of the equation and looking at a business from a business perspective makes him an idiot?
-
Lol that would be the day. I like how you say no more corruption, like the US government isn't. It's just done differently over here'they' were here before i was.
why don't we just claim mexico as an incorporated territory of the US? that way the americans who want to move to cabo san lucas can get in their uhaul and go and those from tijuana who want to move to n. platte, NE can do so w/o passports etc. take over their gov't and military, more jobs for both and no more corruption.
HA!
Lol that would be the day. I like how you say no more corruption, like the US government isn't. It's just done differently over here
that's why i wrote HA! after that line.
i ain't that dubm.
-
You're a fucking idiot.
So taking emotion out of the equation and looking at a business from a business perspective makes him an idiot?
So taking emotion out of the equation and looking at a business from a business perspective makes him an idiot?
Don't you know that older member on this forum know everything about life and the younger guys can't possibly understand how the world works?
-
how does it makes sense biz wise?
someone explain that to me.
a team in london makes sense.
GTFO.
-
Makes absolutely no sense. But the soccer boys think it does.
-
It would have to be much more lucrative in London than in LA for it make sense logistically, and I just don't see it. But what do I know, I'm not Roger get paid millions to do nothing Goodell
-
It's bringing your product into a new market.
A new market brings the potential for a new revenue streams aka new/more fans, merchandise, as well as endorsement and tv deals to name a few.
That's more money that goes into the owners pockets.
That is the basic business perspective you guys seem to be struggling with.
It seems the NFL is sufficiently impressed with their previous forays in London the past few years that they believe it has enough of a fanbase to support a team, as well as become profitable to the league.
Now if you want to debate if the hosting of a few games a year is enough of an impetus to put a franchise there or if the success of those previous games equated more to a spectacle bore out of curiosity instead of actually fandom, go right ahead.
The basic business logic involved however, can't be disputed.
-
It would have to be much more lucrative in London than in LA for it make sense logistically, and I just don't see it. But what do I know, I'm not Roger get paid millions to do nothing Goodell
It would have to be much more lucrative in London than in LA for it make sense logistically, and I just don't see it. But what do I know, I'm not Roger get paid millions to do nothing Goodell
London would also serve as a jumping off point into Europe.
Plus LA is working just fine for the owners as the boogeyman to force local governments to pony up for new stadiums.
-
It's bringing your product into a new market.
A new market brings the potential for a new revenue streams aka new/more fans, merchandise, as well as endorsement and tv deals to name a few.
That's more money that goes into the owners pockets.
That is the basic business perspective you guys seem to be struggling with.
It seems the NFL is sufficiently impressed with their previous forays in London the past few years that they believe it has enough of a fanbase to support a team, as well as become profitable to the league.
Now if you want to debate if the hosting of a few games a year is enough of an impetus to put a franchise there or if the success of those previous games equated more to a spectacle bore out of curiosity instead of actually fandom, go right ahead.
The basic business logic involved however, can't be disputed.
It's bringing your product into a new market.
A new market brings the potential for a new revenue streams aka new/more fans, merchandise, as well as endorsement and tv deals to name a few.
That's more money that goes into the owners pockets.
That is the basic business perspective you guys seem to be struggling with.
It seems the NFL is sufficiently impressed with their previous forays in London the past few years that they believe it has enough of a fanbase to support a team, as well as become profitable to the league.
Now if you want to debate if the hosting of a few games a year is enough of an impetus to put a franchise there or if the success of those previous games equated more to a spectacle bore out of curiosity instead of actually fandom, go right ahead.
The basic business logic involved however, can't be disputed.
Yes, any idjit knows that it is "all about bringing in money from a new market". But what evidence do you have that bringing the NFL to London would bring it more money than bringing the league to the new markets with these names:
Los Angeles
San Antonio
Portland
Las Vegas
Birmingham Alabama.
or even Toronto/Vancouver, or Monterey Mexico
Maybe there is a tad bit of interest. They would perhaps make a handful of new money in London....but what if they could make a truck load of new money in San Antonio?
I know that they could make a truck load of money bringing the NFL into the San Antonio/Austin area, one of the fastest growing areas in the US. (of course I also know that Jerry Jones wants that market to himself, even though it is 300 miles away, which would be like Chicago claiming Detroit as its territory.
I think we should ask our UK brethren what they think of this possibility.
-
Not to mention these soccer boys seem to forget there was an NFL Europe that failed miserably.
-
Not to mention these soccer boys seem to forget there was an NFL Europe that failed miserably.
Not to mention these soccer boys seem to forget there was an NFL Europe that failed miserably.
I don't know if it actually failed miserably...or that it even lost money. But it by no means made the kind of cash flow that the owners wanted. I am not sure if they had to subsidize it, but they weren't bringing in the profits they wanted.
Edit: in checking, it seems that by the time NFL Europe was folded in 2007 the NFL was subsidizing it to the tune of about $30 million per year. 5 of the 6 NFL Europe teams played in Germany.
So just a few years really, 7? they want to put a team back in London? Hell, that London team went from playing in 90,000 seat Wembly Stadium to the equivalent of a high school stadiums with about 7500-15,000 capacity, plus it move around between 3-4 different cities, including London, Birmingham and Bristol.
Yea, put teams in London and Birmingham....Ontario and Alabama.
-
It's bringing your product into a new market.
A new market brings the potential for a new revenue streams aka new/more fans, merchandise, as well as endorsement and tv deals to name a few.
That's more money that goes into the owners pockets.
That is the basic business perspective you guys seem to be struggling with.
It seems the NFL is sufficiently impressed with their previous forays in London the past few years that they believe it has enough of a fanbase to support a team, as well as become profitable to the league.
Now if you want to debate if the hosting of a few games a year is enough of an impetus to put a franchise there or if the success of those previous games equated more to a spectacle bore out of curiosity instead of actually fandom, go right ahead.
The basic business logic involved however, can't be disputed.
Yes, any idjit knows that it is "all about bringing in money from a new market". But what evidence do you have that bringing the NFL to London would bring it more money than bringing the league to the new markets with these names:
Los Angeles
San Antonio
Portland
Las Vegas
Birmingham Alabama.
or even Toronto/Vancouver, or Monterey Mexico
Maybe there is a tad bit of interest. They would perhaps make a handful of new money in London....but what if they could make a truck load of new money in San Antonio?
I know that they could make a truck load of money bringing the NFL into the San Antonio/Austin area, one of the fastest growing areas in the US. (of course I also know that Jerry Jones wants that market to himself, even though it is 300 miles away, which would be like Chicago claiming Detroit as its territory.
I think we should ask our UK brethren what they think of this possibility.
Yes, any idjit knows that it is "all about bringing in money from a new market". But what evidence do you have that bringing the NFL to London would bring it more money than bringing the league to the new markets with these names:
Los Angeles
San Antonio
Portland
Las Vegas
Birmingham Alabama.
or even Toronto/Vancouver, or Monterey Mexico
Maybe there is a tad bit of interest. They would perhaps make a handful of new money in London....but what if they could make a truck load of new money in San Antonio?
I know that they could make a truck load of money bringing the NFL into the San Antonio/Austin area, one of the fastest growing areas in the US. (of course I also know that Jerry Jones wants that market to himself, even though it is 300 miles away, which would be like Chicago claiming Detroit as its territory.
I think we should ask our UK brethren what they think of this possibility.
London would serve as a jumping off point into a much, much larger market that is Europe. (I'll leave researching the numbers on potential European markets to you but I feel pretty comfortable assuming they are greater than the American markets you've named.) Could the NFL make more money quickly by adding more teams in the US? Probably, but the NFL is taking the long view of this.
What makes more sense long term?
Adding more teams for quick cash in an already saturated (or nearly) market which they already dominate?
Or taking a risk and moving into an untapped market with only one major competitor (soccer)?
Both come with potential risk except one comes with a much larger potential reward.
Obviously my previous statements are merely logical jumps from the little information the NFL has released on the topic, the same information we're all working with. The information the NFL has seems to give them the belief that it's worth the risk.
I know it may seem like I'm advocating for a team in London, but I'm not. I'm just capable of comprehending the NFL's thought process, something it seems like others are having a hard time grasping (hence the explanation of markets), and see the merit in it from a financial stand point.
As for my personal belief on the matter, I don't particularly care for any type of expansion as the thought of diluting the talent pool doesn't sound very appeasing to me. The NFL is currently in a sweet spot with number of opportunities and talent available which plays a big part in the parity of the league, it's most prominent attribute in my eyes.
If the NFL should be focusing on anything, in my mind, it should be concussions and the long term ramifications they cause. This issue has the potential to destroy the NFL but that's another discussion for another day.
-
Yes, any idjit knows that it is "all about bringing in money from a new market". But what evidence do you have that bringing the NFL to London would bring it more money than bringing the league to the new markets with these names:
Los Angeles
San Antonio
Portland
Las Vegas
Birmingham Alabama.
or even Toronto/Vancouver, or Monterey Mexico
Maybe there is a tad bit of interest. They would perhaps make a handful of new money in London....but what if they could make a truck load of new money in San Antonio?
I know that they could make a truck load of money bringing the NFL into the San Antonio/Austin area, one of the fastest growing areas in the US. (of course I also know that Jerry Jones wants that market to himself, even though it is 300 miles away, which would be like Chicago claiming Detroit as its territory.
I think we should ask our UK brethren what they think of this possibility.
London would serve as a jumping off point into a much, much larger market that is Europe. (I'll leave researching the numbers on potential European markets to you but I feel pretty comfortable assuming they are greater than the American markets you've named.) Could the NFL make more money quickly by adding more teams in the US? Probably, but the NFL is taking the long view of this.
What makes more sense long term?
Adding more teams for quick cash in an already saturated (or nearly) market which they already dominate?
Or taking a risk and moving into an untapped market with only one major competitor (soccer)?
Both come with potential risk except one comes with a much larger potential reward.
Obviously my previous statements are merely logical jumps from the little information the NFL has released on the topic, the same information we're all working with. The information the NFL has seems to give them the belief that it's worth the risk.
I know it may seem like I'm advocating for a team in London, but I'm not. I'm just capable of comprehending the NFL's thought process, something it seems like others are having a hard time grasping (hence the explanation of markets), and see the merit in it from a financial stand point.
As for my personal belief on the matter, I don't particularly care for any type of expansion as the thought of diluting the talent pool doesn't sound very appeasing to me. The NFL is currently in a sweet spot with number of opportunities and talent available which plays a big part in the parity of the league, it's most prominent attribute in my eyes.
If the NFL should be focusing on anything, in my mind, it should be concussions and the long term ramifications they cause. This issue has the potential to destroy the NFL but that's another discussion for another day.
London would serve as a jumping off point into a much, much larger market that is Europe. (I'll leave researching the numbers on potential European markets to you but I feel pretty comfortable assuming they are greater than the American markets you've named.) Could the NFL make more money quickly by adding more teams in the US? Probably, but the NFL is taking the long view of this.
What makes more sense long term?
Adding more teams for quick cash in an already saturated (or nearly) market which they already dominate?
Or taking a risk and moving into an untapped market with only one major competitor (soccer)?
Both come with potential risk except one comes with a much larger potential reward.
Obviously my previous statements are merely logical jumps from the little information the NFL has released on the topic, the same information we're all working with. The information the NFL has seems to give them the belief that it's worth the risk.
I know it may seem like I'm advocating for a team in London, but I'm not. I'm just capable of comprehending the NFL's thought process, something it seems like others are having a hard time grasping (hence the explanation of markets), and see the merit in it from a financial stand point.
As for my personal belief on the matter, I don't particularly care for any type of expansion as the thought of diluting the talent pool doesn't sound very appeasing to me. The NFL is currently in a sweet spot with number of opportunities and talent available which plays a big part in the parity of the league, it's most prominent attribute in my eyes.
If the NFL should be focusing on anything, in my mind, it should be concussions and the long term ramifications they cause. This issue has the potential to destroy the NFL but that's another discussion for another day.
I understand looking at the long term prospects and the potential size of the market. But the NFL had a long term experiment at this from 1991-2007.
What has changed in the last 6 years to cause things to look so much brighter to warrant a reboot of European expansion? Really?
If this interglobal sports league is such a great idea, then why does not the English Premier League put a team in New York?
But wouldn't they actually be better of putting a team in Leeds, which I do not believe has a team and which is like the 4th largest metro area in England?
-
Goodell is like the local politician who wants his name stamped on a rec center or library.
The whole idea is stupid, and a London-based team would have huge competitive disadvantages, plus a few positive advantages. I would guess they would stagger a schedule so they'd be home for 4 weeks or so, then away for the same amount of time. Their home opponents would surely almost have to come off of a BYE week to go to London.
-
London would serve as a jumping off point into a much, much larger market that is Europe. (I'll leave researching the numbers on potential European markets to you but I feel pretty comfortable assuming they are greater than the American markets you've named.) Could the NFL make more money quickly by adding more teams in the US? Probably, but the NFL is taking the long view of this.
What makes more sense long term?
Adding more teams for quick cash in an already saturated (or nearly) market which they already dominate?
Or taking a risk and moving into an untapped market with only one major competitor (soccer)?
Both come with potential risk except one comes with a much larger potential reward.
Obviously my previous statements are merely logical jumps from the little information the NFL has released on the topic, the same information we're all working with. The information the NFL has seems to give them the belief that it's worth the risk.
I know it may seem like I'm advocating for a team in London, but I'm not. I'm just capable of comprehending the NFL's thought process, something it seems like others are having a hard time grasping (hence the explanation of markets), and see the merit in it from a financial stand point.
As for my personal belief on the matter, I don't particularly care for any type of expansion as the thought of diluting the talent pool doesn't sound very appeasing to me. The NFL is currently in a sweet spot with number of opportunities and talent available which plays a big part in the parity of the league, it's most prominent attribute in my eyes.
If the NFL should be focusing on anything, in my mind, it should be concussions and the long term ramifications they cause. This issue has the potential to destroy the NFL but that's another discussion for another day.
I understand looking at the long term prospects and the potential size of the market. But the NFL had a long term experiment at this from 1991-2007.
What has changed in the last 6 years to cause things to look so much brighter to warrant a reboot of European expansion? Really?
If this interglobal sports league is such a great idea, then why does not the English Premier League put a team in New York?
But wouldn't they actually be better of putting a team in Leeds, which I do not believe has a team and which is like the 4th largest metro area in England?
I understand looking at the long term prospects and the potential size of the market. But the NFL had a long term experiment at this from 1991-2007.
What has changed in the last 6 years to cause things to look so much brighter to warrant a reboot of European expansion? Really?
If this interglobal sports league is such a great idea, then why does not the English Premier League put a team in New York?
But wouldn't they actually be better of putting a team in Leeds, which I do not believe has a team and which is like the 4th largest metro area in England?
I remember NFL Europe. I can't give you the answers you're looking for as I'm not privy to the NFL's information on the subject. However I believe the common belief was that the lack of talent in the league and the view of it as a minor league of sorts resulted in its downfall. If they put a team there that competes with the big boys it might drum up more interest. I'm sure Europeans would love an opportunity to beat Americans at their own game as well.
As for the EPL putting a team here, I'm not sure, although every country has their own league. I'm not sure if it's just a remnant of that or they didn't like the prospects of going up against football, basketball, baseball and hockey. Plus the MLS is already pretty established.
Is Leeds United no longer around? I know they've been regulated a few times but I hadn't heard they completely folded.
-
It would have to be much more lucrative in London than in LA for it make sense logistically, and I just don't see it. But what do I know, I'm not Roger get paid millions to do nothing Goodell
London would also serve as a jumping off point into Europe.
Plus LA is working just fine for the owners as the boogeyman to force local governments to pony up for new stadiums.
Jumping off point to what? Berlin Paris Etc.... I'm sure there's plenty of places to do it, do you want a 44 team league? Too many teams waters down the talent and sport and I'm just fine with 32London would also serve as a jumping off point into Europe.
Plus LA is working just fine for the owners as the boogeyman to force local governments to pony up for new stadiums.
-
so just fly a team from the west coast to london or paris and have them play on sunday and schedule their bye after it? so there would be teams with bye weeks in the 2nd, 3rd etc. weeks when they really need to recup in the latter part of the season?
c'mon. the whole idea is a joke.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login