North American
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
07 Mar 12
11:31
Joined:
Date Joined:
29 May 10
Hi guys,
I currently work in sports media and wanted to get some ideas from you guys on what you think the biggest plus and negative on an actual American Football team from London / UK joining the NFL in your opinion ?
Any thoughts are welcome..................
thanks
I currently work in sports media and wanted to get some ideas from you guys on what you think the biggest plus and negative on an actual American Football team from London / UK joining the NFL in your opinion ?
Any thoughts are welcome..................
thanks
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 16
|
By:
We don't talk to the press unless we have permission from Uncle O.
|
|
By:
I won't tell you again, BostSox.
|
|
By:
biggest plus is the name, bring on the LONDON LIMEYS
|
|
By:
London ****s...they`ll think its a pass oreinted team
|
|
By:
London To$$er$ that said
|
|
By:
Personally, I'd be against it for a variety of reasons. Most fans of NFL in this country already have a team they have an affinity with, and I doubt many will switch on creation of a new London franchise. Therefore the franchise would be reliant upon new fans to take off, although there will no doubt be fans who adopt them on a second team basis. If the London team was a genuine expansion franchise the likelihood is for the best part of a decade at least, it would be rubbish. If it is relocation of an existing franchise there is something karmic that unsettles. There is still a significant minority in the US and UK who are against the one off international series games.
There are numerous cities that make better sense whatever the circumstances of any team relocation or expansion. Los Angeles, Portland, Salt Lake, Vegas, Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and Mexico City would be better fits to how North American sports currently operate. The broad logistics of having a team on another continent would also seem problematic, surely a massive advantage for home games and a crippling disadvantage for away games. Recruiting players to another continent may be difficult, particularly when multiplied by the franchise potentially being expansive as well. The London franchise would still have to have a set up in the US to deal with scouting at college level and other summary activities that simply won't just come with the franchise. |
|
By:
Beefy The Beefeater will be the mascot
|
|
By:
Agree with Sumo. Also attendances would be poor, fans flock from all over Britain and Ireland for a once a season day out. Fans from these far flung places aren't going to fork out for season tickets, they'll be relying on a Southern England fanbase solely, be lucky to get 30k regularly if it happened.
|
|
By:
To be blunt, it would mean missing NFL on TV
|
|
By:
Most fans of NFL in this country already have a team they have an affinity with, and I doubt many will switch on creation of a new London franchise.
That's a terrible reason. Historically, teams that move and new teams are perfectly capable of garnering a new fanbase. Any suggestion that that wouldn't work here is skewered by the fact that MK Dons now get crowds as big as Wimbledon did (at the same tier). Los Angeles, Portland, Salt Lake, Vegas, Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and Mexico City I agree, with a couple of exceptions. Players would probably have more objections to going to Mexico City (safety) and Salt Lake (religion and booze) than London. The word on the American sports forums that I use is that the 32 owners at the moment like LA not having a team, as they can use the 'we could always go to SoCal' argument as leverage against their own local governments. In fact, the two biggest problems with the idea of a London franchise are these. i) Logistics - There are all sorts of logistical issues with a single European team. Teams coming over to Europe would rightly be able to argue that they faced an unfair disadvantage. What might just be feasible is two European teams - the other probably in Germany. Teams could then come to Europe for two weeks, and the European teams could do two weeks in Europe and two in the States. ii) Tax - No-one really thinks about this one. The top rate of income tax in most European countries is vastly bigger than in the States. Spain and Switzerland have tax rules that might make a team feasible, but they don't have much of an NFL following. |
|
By:
It'll never happen, it's a load of old bollox anyway.
|
|
By:
I love the NFL, but I wouldnt be tempted to go to London to watch.
|
|
By:
Most fans of NFL in this country already have a team they have an affinity with, and I doubt many will switch on creation of a new London franchise.
That's a terrible reason. Historically, teams that move and new teams are perfectly capable of garnering a new fanbase. Any suggestion that that wouldn't work here is skewered by the fact that MK Dons now get crowds as big as Wimbledon did (at the same tier). It's success that's the critical factor here though, and if it's an expansion team that will be a long time in coming. Monarchs were getting 40k the season they won, down to 16k before they left London, and averaged only 6k when they played all around the country. While I know that wasn't NFL, it shows the importance of success, and relative disinterest for a London branded team when out in the provinces. We're not getting the Packers transplanted over here if it ever happens, we're getting an expansion team that will be going 2-14 for a decade! The UK marketbase for NFL is still limited at the moment- 0.04-0.08m is the norm for Sky Sports Sunday evening televised games. While people make the effort once a year to go to Wembley, eight times a year would be an expensive proposition for out of towners, so the question is how many people in London are screaming out for an NFL team that will be rubbish for a decade? Yeah the glory hunters will be out when a team is going 15-1, 1-15 though, and it will be a different proposition. I agree that one team on its own out here would be insane, let's screw evolution and go revolution...  I think they'd have to come up with a division of four out here in Europe, and another division of four elsewhere (Canada/Mexico/US). That would give you 40 teams, 20 per conference, 5 divisions of 4 in each. Playoffs would be 5 division winners and 3 wild cards- straightforward playoffs of 1v8, 2v7, 3v6 and so on.... By doing this at the least you ensure that 2 of the 8 expansion teams get to the playoffs in any given year. Although in reality we know that if anything happens in the near future it will be the Vikings or Jags decamping to LA! |
|
By:
I hear the next plan is to run the Kentucky Derby at Lingfield and that the LA Galaxy are joining the English Premier League next season.
The idea of a London based team in the NFL is a load of bollox, just like the stupid scenario of hosting an NFL game in London every year. The whole of the UK couldn`t sustain an NFL team let alone one city. Sure fans would turn up for the first season or two, but there is no way they would or afford to travel to London from all corners of the UK (like they do yearly for the Mickey Mouse game) once the novelty had worn off and their bank balances quickly diminished each week. |
|
By:
My view is the NFL love to market themselves to the world BUT it is simply that - marketing. The "hype" of the NFL coming to the UK is enough to give 85,000 the taste for the day but the U.S. based ownership have no interest in sharing revenue with the UK except on one event a year.
They wave, they smile, the conquer and cash in...and go home. SHAPESHIFTER formerly of Montreal Canada Who has watched the NFL 'Talk for years' about expanding beyond its borders to keep interesting going for revenue but will never invest a penny outside the red the white and blue |
|
By:
Exactly shapshifter.
The NFL is having NKLUK and in particular Alastair whatsisname for a mug! It'll never happen. The money is in gamepass etc Grow the game in this country? LOL!!! the draft wasn't even free this year! |