UK expansion

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

06-29-2012, 04:51 AM
little bear

UK expansion

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d...re_News_Footer

Quote:

Robert Kraft, Patriots owner, wants a team in London

While on a tour in London to promote the NFL International Series, which continues at Wembley Stadium on October 28, New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft expressed his desire to see an NFL franchise in London within the next 10 years.
"I personally think we should have a franchise in London and that is something I am going to push for," Kraft said via Neil Reynolds of Sky Sports. "I think I said that the last time we were over here in 2009 and before this next decade is out, I hope we have a team here. I think that would be right for the NFL and this fan base has proven they deserve it.
"I think we're starting to tap out in the United States. If you look at the last Super Bowl we were in this past season, we had over 180 million people watching -- that's almost two thirds of America. So for us to grow the game, we have to expand globally. Having seen the kind of support we have received here in London, it is the intention of the NFL owners to get two games here, starting next year."
Growing the game globally makes sense, but which team goes?
The St. Louis Rams are playing a home game in London over the next three seasons, but the Rams returning to the Los Angeles market makes far more sense, and should be a higher priority than moving them to London, even if owner Stan Kroenke is already invested overseas with Arsenal of the English Premier League.
I hate to disagree with Mr. Kraft, but I can't see how placing a team in London on a full-time basis makes any sense. The travel strain it would place on that club, as well as its opponents, is simply too great.
How will that club be able to attract and retain free agents?
Would it be based and train on the East Coast of the United States before traveling across the (very large) pond eight times a year to play its games?
If so, how would it ever be able to build a real connection to its London fan base?
Two games per year in the U.K. is fine. If the league wants to reboot NFL Europe, a much-needed developmental league, even better. But let's get a team in Los Angeles before we start looking overseas.

Stupid. If I'm a college football player I don't want to bust my ass for 3 or 4 year and get drafted to a team overseas. It would especially suck for veterans who get signed to that team in free agency. "Oh, hey honey I was just signed to the London Whatevers. Pack up your stuff we are moving to Europe." Uhh no. This is an American sport and it needs to stay in America. You don't see the English Premiere Soccer League adding a franchise in the United States do you?

I think everythings great with the teams we got right now. If you want more, put a team in L.A. first. If you do want to go international stay in north america for God's sake. But fyi NFL stands for National Football League.
06-29-2012, 10:23 AM
short faced bear

Apparently they forgot about how well the NFL Europe league fared.
06-29-2012, 10:53 AM
matsellah

Only 180 million watched the Super Bowl?

That's it, the league is washed up.

The only thing 'tapped out' is Kraft's list of reasons.
06-29-2012, 11:26 AM
The Benjamin

It works for one game a year... Maybe even two. But the scheduling would be hell if it ever produced a 16 game schedule.
06-29-2012, 01:19 PM
Riczaj01

You'd have to have them on the road for 4 games, give them a bye week, then 8 games at home(so each team's bye week could be either before for after the London trip) then give them another 4 game road trip.

NFL Europe failed b/c the talent wasn't good enough to draw interest. Players at that level would rather take the chance of playing Arena or Canada then busting hump for the same chances in Europe. If it was a quality NFL team(not minnisota or cleveland) and they were facing other quality teams I think England would love it.

I think the key is that he said w/in 10 years.
06-29-2012, 01:31 PM
Jimmors

Quote:

Originally Posted by little bear

Stupid. If I'm a college football player I don't want to bust my ass for 3 or 4 year and get drafted to a team overseas. It would especially suck for veterans who get signed to that team in free agency. "Oh, hey honey I was just signed to the London Whatevers. Pack up your stuff we are moving to Europe." Uhh no. This is an American sport and it needs to stay in America. You don't see the English Premiere Soccer League adding a franchise in the United States do you?

I think everythings great with the teams we got right now. If you want more, put a team in L.A. first. If you do want to go international stay in north america for God's sake. But fyi NFL stands for National Football League.

Waaah. A job is a job. Especially one that pays millions. Shit, pay me $30M for 5 years and ill go play in some Mexican shit hole.

Besides that, a team in London would be a logistical nightmare. Also, there is no demand for an NFL team there, i think all this "team in London" talk is just wishful thinking. They closed NFLE because it was a failure, stupid Europeans enjoy their soccer too much.
06-29-2012, 02:14 PM
BearStuff

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmors

Waaah. A job is a job. Especially one that pays millions. Shit, pay me $30M for 5 years and ill go play in some Mexican shit hole.

Besides that, a team in London would be a logistical nightmare. Also, there is no demand for an NFL team there, i think all this "team in London" talk is just wishful thinking. They closed NFLE because it was a failure, stupid Europeans enjoy their soccer too much.

How long before athletes, or their advisors, realize that playing in the UK will cost them a schload in taxes? They might be able to get draftees to sign....at first, but they wouldn't get any F/A's to sign....except for the like of TO.
06-29-2012, 02:37 PM
Riczaj01

Eh CA and NY cost you a schoad in taxes too; doesn't stop people from wanting to play in NY.
06-29-2012, 03:53 PM
The Benjamin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

You'd have to have them on the road for 4 games, give them a bye week, then 8 games at home(so each team's bye week could be either before for after the London trip) then give them another 4 game road trip.

NFL Europe failed b/c the talent wasn't good enough to draw interest. Players at that level would rather take the chance of playing Arena or Canada then busting hump for the same chances in Europe. If it was a quality NFL team(not minnisota or cleveland) and they were facing other quality teams I think England would love it.

I think the key is that he said w/in 10 years.

They would need a few bye weeks.

Only way it would work, is to have them play 8 and 8 with the bye week in week nine. Or 4-8-4 like you said, but they would need two bye weeks. The team visiting them would have to have a bye week the week after the game so they could get some sense of normalcy. So they would have to play 4 road games to start the year then play 8 home games and close out the year with 4 road games.
06-29-2012, 04:08 PM
BearStuff

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

Eh CA and NY cost you a schoad in taxes too; doesn't stop people from wanting to play in NY.

hahaha, no where close to the schload - off the top (meaning no deductions allowed) that the UK charges. Further, you do realize that when a team plays a game in, say, Texas or Florida, the money they earn there is taxable there (meaning no state tax). The players whose home games, practices, training camps and headquarters are in the UK, will have the vast majority of their income subject to their 40% off the top taxes. That means that F/A's wouldn't be as interested in going to the UK to play, unless the compensation was adjusted up accordingly. Given the salary cap, that can only happen but so many times.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page