Robert Kraft is pushing for a NFL franchise in London. Ummm, I don't think that will work.

Travel time is a killer. To me, that is the main reason I don't think it will work. And, along with the travel, the price of gas is ridiculous.

ESPN and NFL.com give more reasons as to why it probably won't work.

I say concentrate more on getting a team in L.A.

NFL team in London? Hopefully not in my lifetime- the time shift would be too much each week. Imagine London at Seattle or vice-versa? What a homefield advantage.
NFL in Los Angeles? Might happen pretty soon. If hte stadium in farmers park (?) is built, a team (likely San Diego, Oakland, Jacksonville, St Louis or Buffalo) will move there.
I really doubt there will be expansion any time soon. Where else besides LA would they put the second team? Not London, not Mexico, not Las Vegas. Maybe in OKC or Alabama? Not too many places left that could support a team IMO...

captkoi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Robert Kraft is pushing for a NFL franchise in
> London. Ummm, I don't think that will work.
>
> Travel time is a killer. To me, that is the main
> reason I don't think it will work. And, along
> with the travel, the price of gas is ridiculous.
>
>
> ESPN and NFL.com give more reasons as to why it
> probably won't work.
>
> I say concentrate more on getting a team in L.A.


I like the idea. They can have the Patriots now.

I think it could work fine.

The flight time to London is more or less the same as it is to LA if you are on the east coast.

Most east coast teams have no more than two west coast trips a year... sometimes three. Those are easy enough to overcome if you schedule them around bye weeks or make them back to back so they only make one trip.

One interesting thing will be broadcasting.

London is 5 hours ahead of us. All of their games will need to be 6pm starts over there. Also means no monday or sunday night games for that franchise.

Move one struggling franchise to LA...another to London...

Sure, why not?

If I've got to travel for a road game I'd rather go to London than Jacksonville, Buffalo or Cleveland.

Nope. I wouldn't support that and I don't think anyone reasonable would. I can see a team in canada eventually though. I don't think the Buffalo bills have long after their owner finally exits this world.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I like the idea. They can have the Patriots now.
>


That's all the reason I need. They can be the Old England Patriots now.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The flight time to London is more or less the same
> as it is to LA if you are on the east coast.
>

London v. SD would suck for someone. Maybe they can play in Mexico City?

The NFL would do better to put a team in LA. The second largest city in the US, and the NFL isn't there? Yea, put a team in a far away place where nobody cares about the NFL. That makes a lot of sense. Would they even call it football?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2012 06:09PM by DolfanKing.

JC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > I like the idea. They can have the Patriots
> now.
> >
>
>
> That's all the reason I need. They can be the Old
> England Patriots now.


That's a good one. I didn't see it coming. Glad I wasn't drinking coffee at the time.

DolfanKing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > The flight time to London is more or less the
> same
> > as it is to LA if you are on the east coast.
> >
>
> London v. SD would suck for someone. Maybe they
> can play in Mexico City?


You'll never see a team in Mexico. Not with all the violence and the language difference.

I don't think you will ever see one in Canada either, at least so long as the CFL is still an entity.

>
> The NFL would do better to put a team in LA. The
> second largest city in the US, and the NFL isn't
> there? Yea, put a team in a far away place where
> nobody cares about the NFL. That makes a lot of
> sense. Would they even call it football?


LA has to happen. Its a crappy sports town like Atlanta, with the exception of the Lakers, but its crazy there isn't a team there.

As for the fan base in Europe, there is a substantial group of fans in England and around Europe. Its not unheard of for Americans to travel 3,4,5 hours or more, in some areas of the country, to see their NFL team play on Sundays.

There's probably 100+ Million people within a 5 hour driving or train travel radius from the English capital. That's an ENORMOUS untapped market with vast potential and who already has a craving for this product. Add to that the fact that there is no language issue for the players. The weather is conducive to American Football and the culture is similar to ours and its not really a matter of IF we try having a franchise over there, but WHEN.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DolfanKing Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> As for the fan base in Europe, there is a
> substantial group of fans in England and around
> Europe. Its not unheard of for Americans to
> travel 3,4,5 hours or more, in some areas of the
> country, to see their NFL team play on Sundays.
>
>

Maybe they will for one game. But 8 games a year? No. Besides, most of those Americans already have a favorite team. Expats are transient. There will be more fans for the visiting team in London. Nobody will support the home team.

This is just a bad, bad idea.

DolfanKing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > DolfanKing Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > As for the fan base in Europe, there is a
> > substantial group of fans in England and around
> > Europe. Its not unheard of for Americans to
> > travel 3,4,5 hours or more, in some areas of
> the
> > country, to see their NFL team play on Sundays.
>
> >
> >
>
> Maybe they will for one game. But 8 games a year?
> No. Besides, most of those Americans already
> have a favorite team. Expats are transient.
> There will be more fans for the visiting team in
> London. Nobody will support the home team.
>
> This is just a bad, bad idea.


I'm not talking about Expats. They certainly will want tickets but there's a strong following of American Football over there. They've been show recaps of games on TV in England since at least 1984.

They had NFL Europe for 16 years from 1991 to 2007.

There is definitely a sustainable market with an appetite for American Football.

There are no guarantees it works, but I think that if you can get everyone on board with the logistical solutions they'd be crazy not to take a run at it.

Just look at how much international money the NBA pulls in after taking their sport global with the Olympic dream team in 1992.

The NFL doesn't have the ability to use the Olympics to open up oversees markets. The only way to do that is expansion.

Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. But I'd definitely take a run at it if I were in their shoes. You'll know in 2-5 years if it won't work.

If it does, you could double the fanbase for this sport in a couple of years. That means double the TV revenue, merchandising, salary cap....etc ...etc...

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DolfanKing Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > THE Truth Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > DolfanKing Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > As for the fan base in Europe, there is a
> > > substantial group of fans in England and
> around
> > > Europe. Its not unheard of for Americans to
> > > travel 3,4,5 hours or more, in some areas of
> > the
> > > country, to see their NFL team play on
> Sundays.
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Maybe they will for one game. But 8 games a
> year?
> > No. Besides, most of those Americans already
> > have a favorite team. Expats are transient.
> > There will be more fans for the visiting team
> in
> > London. Nobody will support the home team.
> >
> > This is just a bad, bad idea.
>
>
> I'm not talking about Expats. They certainly
> will want tickets but there's a strong following
> of American Football over there. They've been
> show recaps of games on TV in England since at
> least 1984.
>

Simply putting it on TV doesn't make fans.

I've been to Europe, England countless times over the past 15 years, and the only time I've ever heard anyone speak kindly of the NFL is on military bases.

The English have a bloodsport - Rugby. They make fun of the NFL because the players are wearing pads. They think that is weak. They also are not keen on our use of the term "football". It is an over estimation - perhaps a bit culturally myopic - to think that the English like our game. They grew up and played their own games. They like those games the way we like football. They view "American Football" much the same way many Americans view Soccer. Only its worse because almost none of them have played our game.

I suppose if you get a bunch of kids in England playing baseball, American football, and futball, enough of them may realize soccer sucks and they will start playing the real kind of football, and then you may start getting a local fan base. But England is hardly even close, and the team you put in London would essentially be a Jobber.


> They had NFL Europe for 16 years from 1991 to
> 2007.
>
> There is definitely a sustainable market with an
> appetite for American Football.
>
>

Really? Then why, after a 16 year investment, did the NFL leave Europe? That doesn't seem sustainable to me.

>
>
> > They had NFL Europe for 16 years from 1991 to
> > 2007.
> >
> > There is definitely a sustainable market with
> an
> > appetite for American Football.
> >
> >
>


> Really? Then why, after a 16 year investment, did
> the NFL leave Europe? That doesn't seem
> sustainable to me.


HUGE difference between sustaining a league of 8 teams and one franchise that's part of an international NFL.

As you pointed out before...its not knocking soccer off its perch...but it doesn't have to. The NBA hasn't replaced Futbol, but its reaping huge rewards for its international presence. That didn't happen over night. They had to make an investment by exporting their sport and building their fan base.

Same thing here, except that they've been prepping that market place for nearly 30 years.

As you said, Soccer isn't that popular here. Our Football won't be at the top of their sports food chain right away or even ever... but keep in mind...soccer is MUCH more popular in this country when its played on a national level in the olympics or at the World Cup than it is day to day. A franchise in London should have a similar boost in interest since its "their" team competing at the highest level, not a developmental league.

Bottomline is that there is money top be made there.

Like it or not, they are almost certainly going to take a shot at it.

If it works its much more of a cash cow for the league than moving a franchise to Hartford, or portland or some other small US city could ever be.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Bottomline is that there is money top be made
> there.
>

Way more money to be made with a franchise in LA or Canada. And a lot less headache.

DolfanKing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Bottomline is that there is money top be made
> > there.
> >
>
> Way more money to be made with a franchise in LA
> or Canada. And a lot less headache.


I don't think its a one or the other situation.

Move Jacksonville to London.

Move Buffalo to LA.

Canada is a red herring. First off, they do a horrible job supporting their NBA and MLB franchises and they can't support their own national sport of Hockey at a professional level. I don't think there's as much of a cash stream there as you might think.

Canada has 65% of the population of England and it covers 77 times the land mass. Seventy Seven times.

You can get to downtown London in under 2.5 hours on the train from Paris, the Netherlands and Belgium. That's around 100 million people that can get to a game in under 3 hours.

After moving a team to LA, London makes the most economic sense by far.

As I said earlier...maybe it doesn't work out, but the rewards if it does are HUGE compared to Canada or another small market US city.

It would be one thing if they hadn't already laid the groundwork for this but they have so its not like they will be starting up there cold.

Jacksonville would support that team better than London.

No matter how much the NFL has been laying "groundwork", Europeans could care less. They don't like our sports.

Truth, comparing U.S. east/west travel to a team in London is ridiculous. Average flight time from London to New York is 7 hours, depending on conditions. If that team is playing in any other part of the U.S. other than the east coast, go ahead and tack on several additional hours.

It's quite a competitive disadvantage to require a team to make 8 flights each season for a minimum travel time of 7 hours. Just one of several reasons why it won't be happening.

Truth, you couldn't be more wrong on the issue of competitive disadvantage. And yes, I am contending that it's much more of a disadvantage flying from London than from say NY to California. An NFL team from New York is not going to fly to California 8 times a year.

Also a 7 hour flight from London is best case scenario. Hopefully you recognize that. That's from London to New York. What about London to Kansas City? Or Minnesota?

You say that the disadvantage would even out? Wrong again. The teams they would be hosting in London are making one trip across the pond a year, most likely centered around a bye week as customary now. That's one vs. 8. The London team won't have the luxury of 8 bye weeks.

Now I know what you're comeback is, the London team won't make 8 separate trips, they'll play back to back road games at times. At times yes. But those weeks will also be times when they're unable to practice and workout at their facilities, with their full training and conditioning staff on site. It's a competitive disadvantage, plain and simple.

Finally, just because you and Robert Kraft believe that this will happen does not make it a fact. I'm not sure if you're aware, but Kraft is not the only NFL owner who understands the value of a dollar. Do a little research and you will see the overwhelming majority of NFL owners are strongly against a franchise in London.

Hokie Phin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Truth, you couldn't be more wrong on the issue of
> competitive disadvantage. And yes, I am contending
> that it's much more of a disadvantage flying from
> London than from say NY to California. An NFL team
> from New York is not going to fly to California 8
> times a year.
>
> Also a 7 hour flight from London is best case
> scenario. Hopefully you recognize that. That's
> from London to New York. What about London to
> Kansas City? Or Minnesota?
>
> You say that the disadvantage would even out?
> Wrong again. The teams they would be hosting in
> London are making one trip across the pond a year,
> most likely centered around a bye week as
> customary now. That's one vs. 8. The London team
> won't have the luxury of 8 bye weeks.
>
> Now I know what you're comeback is, the London
> team won't make 8 separate trips, they'll play
> back to back road games at times. At times yes.
> But those weeks will also be times when they're
> unable to practice and workout at their
> facilities, with their full training and
> conditioning staff on site. It's a competitive
> disadvantage, plain and simple.
>
> Finally, just because you and Robert Kraft believe
> that this will happen does not make it a fact. I'm
> not sure if you're aware, but Kraft is not the
> only NFL owner who understands the value of a
> dollar. Do a little research and you will see the
> overwhelming majority of NFL owners are strongly
> against a franchise in London.


Can't see it Hokie.

This is a league that as a group is only concerned about increasing revenue.

I don't see logistical travel issues getting in the way of them pursuing the almighty dollar.

Certainly not when there are ways to limit the possible impact of those issues.

I just don't buy the "competitive disadvantage" argument when the league already works around such disadvantages as bi-coastal travel on back to back weeks and short weeks with travel (Thursday games).

1-3 more hours on a charter flight with no airport, no security process isn't nearly the same thing as the emotional, mental or physical stress an average person goes through flying from London to Chicago.

Again, its all about the benjamins.

The NFL has about maxed out its growth potential in this country. Canada is an option, but not the one with the most upside.

Mexico City isn't EVER going to happen.

The weather is awful for Football, the language barrier is a problem, as is the cultural barrier. What NFL star is going to want to go to a country/city where they have to hire a security detail to keep them and their families from being kidnapped?


Super Bowl viewership has plateaued at around $111M viewers. The World cup final pulled in 700m-1B viewers.

If the NFL owners think they can get a significant piece of that pie they will go to London. If the don't they won't.

"Competitive disadvantages", real or imagined, will have little impact on the final decision unless the money just isn't there.


It certainly will be fascinating to see how it plays out.

Interesting what you consider a plateau. The 2008 Super Bowl had 96 million viewers. 2012 had nearly 114 million viewers. That's an upward trend.

Not sure if you realize it, but the World Cup can feature teams from 32 different countries, not including the dozens of others who fail to qualify. Not the strongest comparison...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/30/2012 11:59AM by Hokie Phin.

Not so sure about the "few hours" extra in travel. A West Coast team has to travel from the west to the east. That's 7+ hours. Then you are naturally going to have a waiting period before catching the next flight to London. Then there is travel time to the hotel. Jet lag is a major factor.

What happens if there are delays due to malfunctions of the plane, weather delays, etc? More hours lost, or game delayed a few days, or it will have to be rescheduled, or cancelled all together?

While in the Air force, I was on some of those flights; not fun, then as I said, the jet lag will take a few days to get over.

To me, it won't work.

L.A. has to be the next NFL destination.

Oh, and one more argument. I have a feeling the NFLPA will have something to say about this, and it won't be in the positive.

Thinking about it, there aren't any positives for the players.

captkoi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Thinking about it, there aren't any positives for
> the players.


Sure there are.

MORE MONEY.

captkoi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not so sure about the "few hours" extra in travel.
> A West Coast team has to travel from the west to
> the east. That's 7+ hours. Then you are
> naturally going to have a waiting period before
> catching the next flight to London. Then there is
> travel time to the hotel. Jet lag is a major
> factor.
>
> What happens if there are delays due to
> malfunctions of the plane, weather delays, etc?
> More hours lost, or game delayed a few days, or it
> will have to be rescheduled, or cancelled all
> together?
>
> While in the Air force, I was on some of those
> flights; not fun, then as I said, the jet lag will
> take a few days to get over.
>
> To me, it won't work.
>
> L.A. has to be the next NFL destination.

NFL teams don't fly commercial.

The charter their own flights for road trips.

Connections, delays, security, 2+ hour wait at airport pre-flight are things they don't have to deal with.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Everyone is concentrating on this side of the pond
> and what an American team would have to do once a
> year.

Hardly everyone. From what I can see, the only people that think this is a good idea are Robert Kraft and Truthy.