wildwing64 Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Apparently the NFL plans to have five games played in London next year. Apparently also they've denied that rumour and have confirmed they'll have "only" the three games in 2015. PotD: 24/08/2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportstar1212 Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 3 games or 5, they're really milking that London cow. It's called the "International Series", so why not look at games in other places if you're going to do multiple international games? They should at least play a game in Mexico again, and perhaps look at Germany, Spain, or even Brazil. Spread the wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Agreed Dublin, Rome, Tokyo, Australia www.sportsecyclopedia.com For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DustDevil61 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 I've wondered why the NFL doesn't go elsewhere besides London. My choices would be Berlin/Frankfurt, Mexico City , Sydney , Tokyo. Maybe even Wellington, New Zealand, provided its population is large enough. AKA @LanRovr0 on Twitter LED Sig Credits to packerfan21396 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DS729 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 The NFL definetley should consider playing games in Mexico City again... it's not a pain in the ass to travel too (no one would need a bye week before playing there) only issue is that Estadio Azteca might not sell out every time with it's 100,000+ capacity. And consider other locations around Europe, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Barcelona, Madrid, Frankfurt, and Amsterdam could probably be good targets. They should also not just play random games in London, maybe use good Northeastern teams like the Patriots and Eagles, it doesn't make sense why they are sending the Jaguars over there to play the Raiders for cripes' sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 They're sending scrapheap franchises because decent ones aren't willing to give up home games just so Goodell can fap to the thought of putting a team in London. The Patriots and Bears and such have played in London as the road team, but that's all they'll ever be until they start angling for new publically financed stadiums. Fanbases of landmark teams would be pissed about losing a home game, and luckily for Goodell, there are is no shortage of teams which can't sell out their stadium and/or are demanding a new one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I keep hearing Mexico City for NFL and MLB, but is it really an economically-viable option for anything other than the once-in-a-decade exhibition? It seems foolish to consider expanding to such a financially unstable city / nation. I don't know much about MC so maybe I'm off base there, but that's my first reaction. Germany is IMO really the best non-US market for the NFL. It has large financially well-off cities, interest (based on NFLE and WLAF), is stable financially and civily (basically there's no coups or wars starting any time soon), and the dollar v Euro game isn't as bad as the dollar v pound game.Of course, there's an extra hour difference, so we'd still need that Star Trek transporter beam to make this happen. Fortunately, if anyone could invent it (or at least fine tune it), it's the Germans! "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DG_ThenNowForever Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 It's indefensible that some teams have 8 home games while others have 7. 1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said: and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSU151 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 It's indefensible that some teams have 8 home games while others have 7.How is it indefensible? If I can get 7 homes games with an average attendance of 65,000, and an 8th home game with an attendance of 80,000, I'll make that deal as an owner. The hometown fans can't be mad (well, in the context of NFL season ticket policies) if they're paying for 9 games instead of 10. Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DG_ThenNowForever Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 It's indefensible that some teams have 8 home games while others have 7.How is it indefensible? If I can get 7 homes games with an average attendance of 65,000, and an 8th home game with an attendance of 80,000, I'll make that deal as an owner. The hometown fans can't be mad (well, in the context of NFL season ticket policies) if they're paying for 9 games instead of 10.I get that there's a financial incentive for the owners, but there's a huge competitive disadvantage for the team.Here's a home/road win stats from 2002 to 2012:It's an overall .572 record for home teams, and only one team (the Giants) had more road than home wins. If some teams have a built-in disadvantage by losing a home game, all teams should. 1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said: and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 According to the SBJ, clubs who volunteer to give up a home game in order to play in London will receive an additional payment of $1 million in addition to the already-agreed financial reimbursements for lost revenues on gameday. That payment will be used to address additional costs incurred by the home teams for staging a game overseas in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 My understanding from a few years ago was that every team would have to eventually lose a home game for the International Series. The Bills are (or were?) exempt because of their Toronto games. Maybe that has changed if teams are volunteering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 My understanding from a few years ago was that every team would have to eventually lose a home game for the International Series. The Bills are (or were?) exempt because of their Toronto games. Maybe that has changed if teams are volunteering.I hadn't heard that, and it sounds dubious. There's just no way the Patriots are giving up a home game for Goddell's fantasy. There's no way the Packers leave Lambeau for a week, and hurt the local businesses which relies on their games 10 times a year. If the NFL tries to force solid franchises with strong fanbases to give up home games, the fans are going to go nuts. Also, the cities which built these billion dollar stadiums to sit vacant 355 days are year are going to be extremely pissed if they're vacant 356 days. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if recent stadium contracts had the wording that teams couldn't play home games in other stadiums outside of emergencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted October 30, 2014 Author Share Posted October 30, 2014 Madison Square Garden's teams have provisions that state they can't play home games anywhere in New York but Madison Square Garden, which is why the Islanders and Devils were the home teams for the Rangers' two games at Yankee Stadium. I wouldn't doubt it'll be hard to move some of these games to London. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 They should put a team in Rome. They have a stadium just sitting there without a tenant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayMac Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 They should put a team in Rome. They have a stadium just sitting there without a tenant. Goodell is looking to place one regular season game over there in 2015. Word has it, the Bucs will be the home team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 The NFL definetley should consider playing games in Mexico City again... it's not a pain in the ass to travel too (no one would need a bye week before playing there) only issue is that Estadio Azteca might not sell out every time with it's 100,000+ capacity. And consider other locations around Europe, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Barcelona, Madrid, Frankfurt, and Amsterdam could probably be good targets. They should also not just play random games in London, maybe use good Northeastern teams like the Patriots and Eagles, it doesn't make sense why they are sending the Jaguars over there to play the Raiders for cripes' sake. The FA needs the NFL and the NFL is happy to go there. The FA needs to pay off the debt on Wembley and they have issues doing it off concerts and their soccer events alone. Plus, unlike the other major European cities/venues mentioned, Wembley is basically dormant in the fall.Mexico: The NFL does have a Mexico City office and their GM there said that the return of F1 to Mexico City could be a positive sign that international events can make a return to the city. OTOH, Televisia really does not need the revenue at Azteca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 They should put a team in Rome. They have a stadium just sitting there without a tenant. Goodell is looking to place one regular season game over there in 2015. Word has it, the Bucs will be the home team.At least its in better shape than the stadium in Oakland. www.sportsecyclopedia.com For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 They should put a team in Rome. They have a stadium just sitting there without a tenant. Goodell is looking to place one regular season game over there in 2015. Word has it, the Bucs will be the home team. At least its in better shape than the stadium in Oakland.Your 2015-16 Croatia Panthers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigers6884 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I keep hearing Mexico City for NFL and MLB, but is it really an economically-viable option for anything other than the once-in-a-decade exhibition? It seems foolish to consider expanding to such a financially unstable city / nation. I don't know much about MC so maybe I'm off base there, but that's my first reaction. Not to mention Mexico is pretty politically unstable.They should put a team in Rome. They have a stadium just sitting there without a tenant. How did this not earn post of the day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.