Would you support the Patriots playing a HOME GAME overseas?

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

No way no how. I think the teams that agree to this are stupid.

You are losing a home game, it can only hurt you.

Unless your opponent is the Bucs,Lions,Raiders,Browns or Rams

 

[Wolfpack]

As a season ticket holder, I would have been pissed if I lost one of the 8 regular season home games to London. However, I would support them expanding the regular season schedule to play one game overseas if they got rid of one of the home preseason games we are forced to buy.

 

[JD10367]

I voted "no". For a simple reason: it's a BS way of doing things. Under no circumstances is it a "home" game for ANYONE. Why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT AT HOME!

If they really want to do this, the only way I think it should be done is this:

1.) Pick four cities. The first three are pretty obvious: Toronto, Mexico City, and London. For the fourth, I don't know, but maybe go simple and pick Vancouver.

2.) Give each of those cities four games a year.

3.) Expand the schedule to 17 games: 8 home, 8 away, and 1 international. (Or alternately, just consider one of the "away" games as the international game, for eveyone.)

Voila. Problem solved. Every week there is one "international game" in one of those four cities. Each city gets one game per month, pretty much (Sep/Oct/Nov/Dec).

(And don't schedule teams that would obviously be more of a "home" game, i.e., don't put Buffalo in Toronto, or the Seahawks in Vancouver, or Dallas in Mexico City.)

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Of course nobody wants to lose a home game. If they make season ticket holders pay for it, it's ridiculous, but who is saying they would do that? The Bucks didn't charge their STHs for 8 regular season games, just 7. I expect they would sell tickets abroad just like they have done for the first 3 Wembley games.

But the bottom line is that so long as everyone shares the burden in the long run, I have no problem with it. It's really no different from unbalanced schedules. Sometimes you get to play a crummy division like the NFC west last year. And sometimes you have to play a tough division, like this year. Whatever. Just win the games. If the owners think it will strengthen the league, that's fine with me.

Since this is a sports message board, here are some stats for you: Percentage of times in recorded history that people have vociferously objected to change: 100. Percentage of times in recorded history that those objecting to change have, in the long run, succeeded: Zero.

 

[patfanken]

I voted "no". For a simple reason: it's a BS way of doing things. Under no circumstances is it a "home" game for ANYONE. Why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT AT HOME!

If they really want to do this, the only way I think it should be done is this:

1.) Pick four cities. The first three are pretty obvious: Toronto, Mexico City, and London. For the fourth, I don't know, but maybe go simple and pick Vancouver.

2.) Give each of those cities four games a year.

3.) Expand the schedule to 17 games: 8 home, 8 away, and 1 international. (Or alternately, just consider one of the "away" games as the international game, for eveyone.)

Voila. Problem solved. Every week there is one "international game" in one of those four cities. Each city gets one game per month, pretty much (Sep/Oct/Nov/Dec).

(And don't schedule teams that would obviously be more of a "home" game, i.e., don't put Buffalo in Toronto, or the Seahawks in Vancouver, or Dallas in Mexico City.)

This is a very good idea, BTW.

I voted FOR the loss of a home game for the following reasons.

1. First the issue of wear and tear on the team is overblown....for East Coast franchises. The trip was less than a hour longer for them than the one they take when they play the Chargers or the Seahawk. Only the time zones change

2. The inconvenience to the fans is less than the potential game they league accomplish in establishing inroads in the European Market place. Here is how I would make it work.

1. There are 9 franchises who you could say are East Coast. Pats, Jets, Giants, Eagles, Skins, Panthers, Jags, Bucs, and Phins....and I'd throw in the Cowboys, because of the name value.

Having a frachise or franchises in Europe is at LEAST a decade away. What the league has to do is keep building their base. Having 3 games a year would do the trick. One per month. Also you would want certain teams to be regular visitors during this decade to start to build up fan loyalty.

If you are doing 3 games a year, you would literally be asking teams to give up ONLY one home game in a DECADE. Is that too much to ask fans. Im sure the league can come up with some perks for the fans of the home team that loses that game that will mitigate the pain, but at worst season ticket holders would have one year a decade where they'd pay less for their season tickets.

Then you'd have those east coast teams at ones who would be regularly be the visiting team. I doubt the Pats would mind playing say 6 or seven times over there in a decade, if only one was as the home team. Other east coast teams would also be targeted as teams the league would like to build the market up with. The Eagles, Giants Skins, and Steelers come to mind. Teams with name recognition, and close enough to Britain so a semi regular trip would be onerous.

Again if the loss of a home game was kept to one a DECADE, I think they should do it.

 

[Tunescribe]

Since this is a sports message board, here are some stats for you: Percentage of times in recorded history that people have vociferously objected to change: 100. Percentage of times in recorded history that those objecting to change have, in the long run, succeeded: Zero.

I'm sure there are many examples of fan displeasure being heeded by ownership. One example (relatively minor) off the top of my head: In 1994 Bob Kraft changed the home uniform numbers from red to white because fans in the 300 sections complained they couldn't read them. Owners of other teams have changed game times to accommodate religious observations, etc., etc. Kraft DOES listen to fan feedback.

 

[jmt57]

If you attend games live, you miss out on up to 12.5% of your team's meaningful games.

What does this mean?

Fans who attend every home game miss out on one out of eight (12.5%) regular season (preseason is not 'meaningful') games when one of their team's home games is played elsewhere.


You could also make the point that although season ticket holders do not pay for that missing game, they do end up getting less value for their investment. Let's say I own two season tickets that go for $200 per ticket, per game. Even though I have to pay for them, I consider preseason tickets throwaways. I pay $4000: 8 regular season games plus 2 preseason games equals ten games, times two tickets, times $200 per ticket equals $4000. But to me the 'value' of each game is $4000 divided by eight regular season games, or $500. per game.

Now when you determine the value of those tickets with only 7 regular season games, it works out to $514.29 per game, or an extra $100 for the season.

Season ticket holders in essence are charged more per (real) game, along with not being able to see as many games, when their team plays one home game elsewhere - unless that one missing game is a preseason game.

 

[AzPatsFan]

When the league expands to an 18 game regular season if I were Kraft I would try to claim Europe as an extended market. The Skins at one time had the entire South as the only "Southern" professional team of that football mad area. The Redskins sold lots of merchandise and received lots of media revenue as their games were broadcast South from from Virginia to Florida, and Southwest all the way to Texas. I believe Preston Marshall was compensated every time the League expanded to the South.

I think it is foolish to speak of expanding to put a team in London, but Green Bay plays, or rather used to play a few games in Milwaukee every year. Buffalo will now do the same with sister city Toronto. In another sport the Celts used to play a few games throughout New England, trying to maintain their claim on fans when there were multiple NBA teams just across the border in New York.

All dynasties eventually end. New England is not the largest sports market and a New England based team can lose out to cities with stadiums seating 90,000 or more. By comparison, even today, Gillette is the smallest stadium at 68,000 in the AFCE. I want the Pats to always have enough resources to compete. I as an old time Pats fan remember all too well, the tough financial times that led to poor teams, by under under capitalized Billy Sullivan. I don't ever want those days to return...

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I said no. Two reasons:

One, why should we hand to other teams the competitive advantage of having more Home dates than we do?

Two, I neither see the logic of the Patriots' organization giving up 12.5% of its Regular Season Game Day Ticket Revenues nor do I see the fairness of asking Season Ticket Holders who live in Walpole to commute 3,000 instead of 10 miles to use the tickets for which they have paid. That looks like an irresistible force meeting an immovable object to me.

 

[Patjew]

Hey, what have I ever done to you?

No, actually I think playing any games overseas is pretty stupid. I'm a businessman and I understand that the NFL is a business, but must it be ALL business?

 

[patsfan-1982]

team's like the pats the jets and g man

would not make that much more money playing in the uk

boston and new york team's all redy make lot's of money they dont need to give up a home game

and if the pats do give up a home game just to make more money i would like to see them at lest keep there good player's and not just trade them away or let them go in FA

 

[Pats726]

and if the pats do give up a home game just to make more money i would like to see them at lest keep there good player's and not just trade them away or let them go in FA

I think you should read and try to understand about the salary cap ONE has nothing to do with the other...

 

[patsfan-1982]

I think you should read and try to understand about the salary cap ONE has nothing to do with the other...

i know i just dont wanna give up a home game and i dont think that the pats would but bob kraft realy liked the idea of playing in the uk so maybe he will