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

Do not like this idea at all, there are several untapped markets in the continental US that would be more appealing than this, the logistics of fielding a team 3K+ miles away is not worth the hastle..

You can "grow" the market, by adding more US venues...

"I think the MLB is doing just fine in their current model." -someone else 50 years ago.

Keep the NFL in America. Say 'no' to a British franchise.

BritPat said:

Keep the NFL in America. Say 'no' to a British franchise.

Click to expand...

You're such a homer. Wait, wwwwhhhaaaaat.....????

The constant dangling of the threat of a 'London Silly-Nannies' is nothing more than the opening gambit in negotiations regarding the NFL International Series.

American fans are so busy getting worked up about hugely unlikely prospect of the 'London Silly-Nannies' that they will quickly concede their teams making regular trips across the pond.

Forget the logistics - people have compared flight times to west coast-east coast trips - its the simple fact that London doesn't want its own team.

It will however consistently keep filling large 80,000 venues if they keep sending teams of reasonable quality as part of the International series.

fnordcircle said:

I'd love it if we had a team in London, the NFL needs to get to the world stage if it hopes to compete with soccer which is going to grow in popularity by leaps and bounds. Globalization is the key to any sports survival over the next century.

Screw the logistics aspect, it'd be fun.

Click to expand...

Soccer has as much chance of overtaking the NFL in the USA as it does overtaking AFL in Australia. Sweet **** all.

A team in London is nonsensical. This isn't Canada, this is an 11 hour fight from the West Coast to the UK. IMO, it's plain silly.

ausbacker said:

Soccer has as much chance of overtaking the NFL in the USA as it does overtaking AFL in Australia. Sweet **** all.

Click to expand...

"Computers will never need more than 640k of RAM" -Bill Gates.

fnordcircle said:

"Computers will never need more than 640k of RAM" -Bill Gates.

Click to expand...

Unless you plan on inventing teleporting or re-imagining the Concord, I suggest you find a more applicable quote.

In 50 years, the league has went from a dot on the map to crushing America's pasttime. Is it that farfetched in the distant future that the NFL could have 8 teams in Europe, a couple teams in Canada, etc?

fnordcircle makes a good point that a London franchise would be a big step to globalizing the sport.

Logistically it's a mess though. Also, could this London team compete? What free agent is going to go sign and play in London? What about draftees holding out?

I'd honestly rather have the league tap into the Canadian market. It just seems more realistic.

Is the CFL really that popular in Canada?

fnordcircle said:

I'd love it if we had a team in London, the NFL needs to get to the world stage if it hopes to compete with soccer which is going to grow in popularity by leaps and bounds. Globalization is the key to any sports survival over the next century.

Screw the logistics aspect, it'd be fun.

Click to expand...

Forget soccer, can the NFL/ American football compete with Rugby oversees?

You either grow or you die. The NFL feels that they must be approaching the limit of popularity and growth in the US. They have looked at expanding the season, and my guess is that will eventually happen. Canada, Mexico, and other US cities? People are already watching football there, does the true growth come from the stadium and the home games, or the TV revenue and getting new people to watch the games. I think it comes from TV.

Europe is the untapped market. A single team to start the ball rolling, games on at the right times. Interest in the sport, kids starting to play, people following it, huge populations. Let's face it, football is successfull because it is the perfect tv game, if you can give Europeans a reason to start watching it, the NFL will succeed there, they just need to take that leap.

The NFL had better come to grip with the following realities if they want to put a team in London.

`1. They have hit the limit of teams at 32. In terms of the quality of play and the logistics of putting a season together, adding more teams isn't going to be good business.

2. The logistical problems of putting a team in London are more than daunting. It would be an unfair competitive situation. Competing for players, travel, etc. It w3ould be a nightmare.

3. The ONLY way I can see having a London presence for the NFL would be to schedule 8 games a year at Wembly. That way the get the PR like a full season without moving the entire operation. Its not a big deal if you only had to go over there once a year every 5 years or so.

I love Bob Kraft, but he's way off base on 2 issues that he's been vocal on. One is playoff expansion. The other is putting a team in London. Well no one is perfect I guess.

SB39 said:

There's nothing "easy" about playing a grueling football schedule where your shortest trip is over 3,000 miles and 5 time zones.

It may work financially, but it would be a disaster competitively.

Click to expand...

no it wouldn't

the team would be an AFC east team, the dolphins would move to the NFC/Afc south, and Tampa/Jax would move to london

first off their schedule wouldn't be the same as a normal schedule. at the start of a season that would have a string of road games vs AFC east division opponents, this would be accomplished by having the team stay stateside, for those weeks.

Once the bye's start happening the London team has a string of home games. Every team that flies over to play London, does so the week AFTER their bye, this gives the away teams a week to fly to London and prepare in the new time zone.

The biggest hurdle is going to be when the London team gets matched vs an NFC/AFC west opponent on the road, but that gets countered by an AFC/NFC west opponent having to play in London as well.

Flights from the East coast are a smidge longer to london, then flights from the west coast to the east coast.

It's easily doable, there would need to be some minor concessions made scheduling wise, but people that act like this is impossible clearly are just too sheltered.

It might be because I've spent so much of my business career on planes flying to far-off places, but I don't get the hand wringing over the travel. I've made it to London from the east coast in around five hours wheels up to wheels down; the trip back can be 7 hours or so, but east to west to San Diego can take over six hours during the winter if the Jet Stream is in a *****y mood. I always had to be sharp when I got to my clients and somehow managed to pull it off; I've tried keep in OK shape for my age, but these are world-class athletes, who are a lot younger and more physically adaptable than me.

The poster who observed that a London-based team would probably be in an Eastern Division is probably on target; the schedule could be arranged so that the team regularly plays at least two consecutive games on the continental US so the disadvantage of the travel would be at least partially offset by spending three or four weeks in a row at home, playing against teams that have made the flight over.

So, I can see reasonable, philosophical objections to putting a team outside the continental US (with which I would disagree), but I think the travel argument is overblown.

Sixty years ago multiple-day train and bus trips were not unheard of, especially for West Coast college and professional teams.

IMO the only concerns for the viability of a relocated London franchise would be (a) will it draw more than Jax and (b) will any differences in the tax law created a Toronto Raptors situation where free agents won't go because of the dent to the pocketbook?

chasa said:

no it wouldn't

the team would be an AFC east team, the dolphins would move to the NFC/Afc south, and Tampa/Jax would move to london

first off their schedule wouldn't be the same as a normal schedule. at the start of a season that would have a string of road games vs AFC east division opponents, this would be accomplished by having the team stay stateside, for those weeks.

Once the bye's start happening the London team has a string of home games. Every team that flies over to play London, does so the week AFTER their bye, this gives the away teams a week to fly to London and prepare in the new time zone.

The biggest hurdle is going to be when the London team gets matched vs an NFC/AFC west opponent on the road, but that gets countered by an AFC/NFC west opponent having to play in London as well.

Flights from the East coast are a smidge longer to london, then flights from the west coast to the east coast.

It's easily doable, there would need to be some minor concessions made scheduling wise, but people that act like this is impossible clearly are just too sheltered.

Click to expand...

Some good thoughts there but having each team play in London after their bye would, theoretically, put the London team at a competitive disadvantage, no? Each team playing them would have extended time to prepare, rest and get healthy, which is considered an advantage. Would it make more sense to have teams play in London before their bye instead, as the NFL does now?

I understand the owners want the league to grow but currently I'm just against a team overseas. I know Kraft is in full support of it and always has been but I am not. Of course, it's not my money invested in the league.

it could work that way, however it that would put west coast teams at a severe disadvantage.

**** London, why aren't we expanding to Canada? Toronto is absolutely ****ing nuts about the Toronto Raptors. They could definitely support an NFL team.

fnordcircle said:

"I think the MLB is doing just fine in their current model." -someone else 50 years ago.

Click to expand...

Poor analogy.

There are plenty of reasons to think that if the NFL expands to London, not only will it be a disaster but it would be a failure from a competitive standpoint. Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.