Kraft stumping for London team (say it ain't so, Bob)

[Ivan]

Oh stop it with the insecurity baloney. Here we are in a thread about the NFL moving to London and soccer fans need it to become another soccer advertisement. It's pretty damn obvious that soccer fans are the most insecure of them all.

Also, I think that having a World Cup thread closed to negative threads about the game of soccer is the epitome of insecurity. I think anyone can see that.

In a nutshell, soccer is boring to me, and the word great never comes to mind on the rare occasion that I think about the game. I was hoping that it wouldn't come up in this football thread, but like I said earlier, I don't have a guardian angel or a Mighty Mouse to protect me from the soccerphants.

And let me ask again, and maybe you can avoid dancing around the answer this time. What makes soccer fans feel so special that their game is above criticism?

This thread is about taking the NFL to a city that has numerous major soccer franchises so it is understandable the game would be brought into the discussion, and anyone who actually read the World Cup thread, which you clearly didn't, knows that it is the soccer fans who are most critical of the game and the body that runs it. FIFA is one of the most corrupt sports organizations on earth and the diving and acting in soccer really harms the game and needs to be dealt with. As far as "boring" goes that is simply a nationalistic bent on the game, because in truth while americans consider Football the most exciting sport the rest of the world considers it to be Soccer. And if the Germany/Brazil game were scored by american football rules then the result would have been 49-7.


IN short 1960, your wish that soccer would not enter into a discussion about putting an NFL franchise in London is much the same as your hilarious post about the problem with pro sporting events being the noise and all the people, completely unrealistic and truly bizarre.

And for the record, shmessy was right to tell you that he was going to bar those who had absolutely no interest in the World Cup from posting their anti soccer comments in it, in case you haven't figured it out yet that kind of behavior is called trolling, and as a moderator it's his job to keep it out of as many threads as he can. You hate soccer and didn't care about the World Cup so you had no business coming into a discussion of it to yell at everyone to GET OFF YOUR LAWN.

 

[Ivan]

The noise isn't coming from the fans. It's coming from the too loud music and advertisements. Do you even go to games?

At least the games are fun to watch, unlike some sports.

I really try to show respect to the elderly, so i am going to just leave this discussion alone. Sports are too noisy for you so don't go.

 

[Brit patriot]

The logistics may be a bit of a pain for the current teams, but the UK is chomping at the bit for an NFL team. The game is just so popular these days.

The issue you will have is that fans, like me, have our own teams. Now I know I am a Patriot for life, and fans of the sport all have their own teams. We are not going to change teams, just because London has a new franchise.

In reality, I wonder whether, after a burst, people will end up staying home and watching their own teams, leading the stadium to not be quite as full as would be expected

 

[AzorianPats]

Oh stop it with the insecurity baloney. Here we are in a thread about the NFL moving to London and soccer fans need it to become another soccer advertisement. It's pretty damn obvious that soccer fans are the most insecure of them all.

Also, I think that having a World Cup thread closed to negative threads about the game of soccer is the epitome of insecurity. I think anyone can see that.

In a nutshell, soccer is boring to me, and the word great never comes to mind on the rare occasion that I think about the game. I was hoping that it wouldn't come up in this football thread, but like I said earlier, I don't have a guardian angel or a Mighty Mouse to protect me from the soccerphants.

And let me ask again, and maybe you can avoid dancing around the answer this time. What makes soccer fans feel so special that their game is above criticism?

Here we are in a thread talking about an NFL franchise going to London, and you're here *****ing about what happened in the WC thread WEEKS ago, complaining about a moderator, and still *****ing about your hate for soccer.....

Sounds to me your the one feeling insecure.

P.S their are fans of a bunch of other sports in these forums, but we are all football fans. . Not just you

 

[mgteich]

I think San Antonio could make an awesome football town!

I must say if there was a state that should have 3 NFL teams, wouldn't football mad Texas be the favorite over California, Florida and New York?

New York has one team and they are one of the least profitable, considering a move to Toronto.

California is a big state. Personally, I don't think a 3rd team makes sense. Obviously, St Louis or Oakland could move back.

I agree that Texas is the only state that could support three financially successful franchises. After all, 2 of the top 5 are now from Texas. San Antonio would be a fine choice for the JAX team.

 

[mgteich]

I think where we can all agree, their are way too many teams in the south.

Really??? Says who?

Of the 7 least profitable teams, 2 are in the South. Yes, we all agree that TB and JAX are unprofitable. Northern Florida can support one team at most. JAX is everyone's choice as one of the 2 most likely teams to move. 2 northern states are among the top 7: Detroit (losing money) and Buffalo.
The other 3 of the 7 least profitable are in the West: ARIZ, SF, and KC.

BTW, the next 3 least profitable include one from each region: CLE, ATL and OAK.

 

[AzorianPats]

Really??? Says who?

Of the 7 least profitable teams, 2 are in the South. Yes, we all agree that TB and J. are unprofitable. Northern Florida can support one team at most. JAX is everyone's choice as one of the 2 most likely teams to move. 2 northern states are among the top 7: Detroit (losing money) and Buffalo.
The other 3 of the 7 least profitable are in the West: ARIZ, SF, and KC.

BTW, the next 3 least profitable include one from each region: CLE, ATL and OAK.

Jacksonville, TB, and before last season I thought a Carolina was really showing that it wasn't a great football town. Atlanta is a horrible sports town period. The only teams in the south thst have good followings are NO, Tennessee and to a lesser extent Miami.

Buffalo Oakland are the result of playing in old, outdated stadiums, as was SF for that matter. I don't think anyone thinks SF should relocate. I think the Lions not being profitable as more to do with Detroit struggling in everyday life.

 

[AzorianPats]

The logistics may be a bit of a pain for the current teams, but the UK is chomping at the bit for an NFL team. The game is just so popular these days.

The issue you will have is that fans, like me, have our own teams. Now I know I am a Patriot for life, and fans of the sport all have their own teams. We are not going to change teams, just because London has a new franchise.

In reality, I wonder whether, after a burst, people will end up staying home and watching their own teams, leading the stadium to not be quite as full as would be expected

That's what I'm thinking myself.

Question? What's more popular in the UK today NFL or rugby?

 

[mgteich]

Cricket is clearly more popular in the UK than rugby or the NFL. It is the 2nd most popular sport in the world. My guess is that rugby is far more popular than the NFL in the UK. But I don't see why that's relevant. Clearly, a local team would get a big TV contract in the UK and in other parts of Europe.

That's what I'm thinking myself.

Question? What's more popular in the UK today NFL or rugby?

 

[AzorianPats]

Cricket is clearly more popular in the UK than rugby or the NFL. It is the 2nd most popular sport in the world. My guess is that rugby is far more popular than the NFL in the UK. But I don't see why that's relevant. Clearly, a local team would get a big TV contract in the UK and in other parts of Europe.

It's very relevant.

The NFL would be in competition with rugby for talent. Putting a franchise in London, if successful should inspire a local kid their who's let's just say 6'4 250 lbs to choose football over rugby. That's how a game grows and builds more interest.

 

[mgteich]

It's very relevant.

The NFL would be in competition with rugby for talent. Putting a franchise in London, if successful should inspire a local kid their who's let's just say 6'4 250 lbs to choose football over rugby. That's how a game grows and builds more interest.

There are no plans to have a college American football system in England. As you indicate NFL owners would be competing with rugby leagues for players. A profession rugby players average $138,500 per year ($560,000 for a top player). I don't see this as a huge competitve stumbling block for the NFL.

The popularity of rugby is a PLUS to the NFL. Rugby teams (academic and professional) would be the place where players would be drawn from. The academic and professional rugby teams would serve as a minor league for NFL football, primarily because of the high pay scale of NFL football.

This is an interesting side issue. If an NFL team is established in England, perhaps more rugby players would end up in the NFL, on the UK team and on others. Obviously, many would get tryouts for the UK team, considering the 90 man off-season roster. Belichick certainly like rugby players.

BOTTOM LINE
I think that the NFL would do well financially as the #4 sport in the UK (after soccer, cricket and rugby). After all, the NFL gets lots of revenue from Canada as its #3 sport.

 

[mgteich]

Jacksonville, TB, and before last season I thought a Carolina was really showing that it wasn't a great football town. Atlanta is a horrible sports town period. The only teams in the south thst have good followings are NO, Tennessee and to a lesser extent Miami.

Buffalo Oakland are the result of playing in old, outdated stadiums, as was SF for that matter. I don't think anyone thinks SF should relocate. I think the Lions not being profitable as more to do with Detroit struggling in everyday life.

I suppose you have your own system of evaluating home support. The reality is that the only team not making money is Detroit. I'm sure their is lots of support for the Detroit team from the area south of Detroit.

CAR makes lots more money than lots of other teams. As you say,TENN, NO and MIA do fine. I agree tha ATL is a terrible sports town, but the team has support from many in the region, some many hours away. For example, we almost always see ATL games here in South Carolis (4 1/2 hours away). In any case, the problem children are JAX and TB. Personally, I would move them both (one to San Antonio and the other to London). BTW, some folks think that Texas is part of the South.

To me, profitability matters. Perhaps this is an old fashioned view of business. SF is a horrible investment. The new stadium should help profitability. I agree that no one is suggesting that they move. OAK and SF share the market, which apparently cannot support two very profitable teams. Perhaps, this idea will tested if OAK gets a new stadium. Both would improve, but I suspect that SF would be much better off without an OAK franchise so close.

I agree that OAK and BUFF are near financial peril because of their stadiums. The situation will be solved one way or the other. LA and Toronto are the obvious alternatives.

The BOTTOM LINE is that there are several teams in trouble, as is often the case, but all but DET are profitable. The owners and leagues are looking ahead and solving the problems with new stadiums and perhaps will (as they have in the past) solve the problems with moves. I see all this as good for the league.

 

[AzorianPats]

I suppose you have your own system of evaluating home support. The reality is that the only team not making money is Detroit. I'm sure their is lots of support for the Detroit team from the area south of Detroit.

CAR makes lots more money than lots of other teams. As you say,TENN, NO and MIA do fine. I agree tha ATL is a terrible sports town, but the team has support from many in the region, some many hours away. For example, we almost always see ATL games here in South Carolis (4 1/2 hours away). In any case, the problem children are JAX and TB. Personally, I would move them both (one to San Antonio and the other to London). BTW, some folks think that Texas is part of the South.

To me, profitability matters. Perhaps this is an old fashioned view of business. SF is a horrible investment. The new stadium should help profitability. I agree that no one is suggesting that they move. OAK and SF share the market, which apparently cannot support two very profitable teams. Perhaps, this idea will tested if OAK gets a new stadium. Both would improve, but I suspect that SF would be much better off without an OAK franchise so close.

I agree that OAK and BUFF are near financial peril because of their stadiums. The situation will be solved one way or the other. LA and Toronto are the obvious alternatives.

The BOTTOM LINE is that there are several teams in trouble, as is often the case, but all but DET are profitable. The owners and leagues are looking ahead and solving the problems with new stadiums and perhaps will (as they have in the past) solve the problems with moves. I see all this as good for the league.

You're absolutely right, profitability does matter, and at the end of the day that's the bottom line. I'm just judging based on fan interest in those parts of the country. I mean I think we can agree, Carolina might be more profitable, but I don't think anyone would argue that its a better football town then say Cleveland.

I know the city of Detroit is struggling, but I'm surprised the Lions aren't profitable. For that matter Arizona also. They have beautiful fairly new stadiums that always seem to be sold out.

P.S I do consider Texas in the south!

 

[mgteich]

Then, the NFL is extremely profitable in at least one state in the South. Nothing compares with the support given Dallas, now, and over the decades.

P.S I do consider Texas in the south!

 

[mgteich]

What does it mean to say that Cleveland is a much better football town the Charlotte? By what standard? Is that they continue to make the team marginally profitable, even with lousy teams, decade after decade? Is the measure the history of the football in Cleveland?

In the end, a team is a better football town if they go to the games and buy the team's products. Why is CAR more profitable? Is it because of better management?

I mean I think we can agree, Carolina might be more profitable, but I don't think anyone would argue that its a better football town then say Cleveland.

 

[Jackson 2]

It's a shame you guys are so insecure about football, soccer is a great game yet you feel compelled to sh.t on it any time you get the chance and that is simply a sign of insecurity.

Hey, Ivan, I'm with you. People around here, including some of those for whom I have great respect find it necessary to disparage baseball/the Red Sox, NBA/ the Celtics and soccer in general. The Bruins/NHL seem to get a pass with many. But it's like if they were to even just politely say "I'm just not into soccer/baseball/basketball" some almighty power would strike them dead. But, you're right, it's insecurity and it's also unnecessary.

 

[AzorianPats]

What does it mean to say that Cleveland is a much better football town the Charlotte? By what standard? Is that they continue to make the team marginally profitable, even with lousy teams, decade after decade? Is the measure the history of the football in Cleveland?

In the end, a team is a better football town if they go to the games and buy the team's products. Why is CAR more profitable? Is it because of better management?

A fan base that no matter what, win or lose, and lose they do plenty of in Cleveland, still show up and support their team. I have my doubts about Carolina for that matter.

Not to mention, I think Cleveland with a couple of winning seasons, and now Johnny football can be very marketable in the future.

 

[SB39]

The LA Kings were never in Edmonton.

The Kings were one of the six teams added in the NHL's first big expansion when the league went from six to twelve teams for the 1967-68 season. The Edmonton Oilers were one of four franchises added in 1979 as part of the merger between the WHA and the NHL.

My guess is he is confusing Gretzky going from Edmonton to LA as being an entire franchise going from Edmonton to LA.

 

[SB39]

Oh stop it with the insecurity baloney. Here we are in a thread about the NFL moving to London and soccer fans need it to become another soccer advertisement. It's pretty damn obvious that soccer fans are the most insecure of them all.

Eh, they'll shut up now that the Soccer Olympics, uh I mean the World Cup, is over and we're back to a situation where more people watch the WNBA than MLS.

 

[SB39]

Buffalo Oakland are the result of playing in old, outdated stadiums, as was SF for that matter. I don't think anyone thinks SF should relocate.

They actually kind of already have. I think they will break the record as far as distance teams play from the city they represent. If you're in San Francisco, you are literally closer to Oakland Raiders home games than upcoming San Francisco 49ers home games. Not to mention it is 100 times more easily accessible since you can just hop on BART and get to O.co Coliseum.

They're now the San Jose 49ers in all but name.