Four NFL London Games to be played in 2019

[European Bob]

Originally Posted by BuffaloG

A home game. Not every season.

Indeed. See Chargers last year.

[European Bob]

We still have less than half the teams in the league who have given up a home game - and that's including the Cardinals from Mexico 2005. Most of those who haven't already clearly don't want to and won't unless forced. A lot of those are teams who will never host a Super Bowl (Green Bay, Pittsburgh, New England, Baltimore etc) unless there is a radical rethink on that. Once we get the Raiders, Rams and Chargers into their new homes in the next 2 years or so, there are no new stadiums on the horizon. Given only one team hosts the Super Bowl each year, that suggests we are going to have a real shortage of 'home' teams for IS games - certainly not enough for 4 per year or whatever. So they will either need to come up with some way to force teams into it or look to move onto the next stage of a franchise or let it decline.

I reckon the Panthers might have an obligation under the terms of the sale, at least once. The Bengals could probably be persuaded what with their poor attendances. There will always be the Jags. But it's not getting to 3-4 games per year plus 1 in Mexico.

[malcy93]

Originally Posted by European Bob

We still have less than half the teams in the league who have given up a home game - and that's including the Cardinals from Mexico 2005. Most of those who haven't already clearly don't want to and won't unless forced. A lot of those are teams who will never host a Super Bowl (Green Bay, Pittsburgh, New England, Baltimore etc) unless there is a radical rethink on that. Once we get the Raiders, Rams and Chargers into their new homes in the next 2 years or so, there are no new stadiums on the horizon. Given only one team hosts the Super Bowl each year, that suggests we are going to have a real shortage of 'home' teams for IS games - certainly not enough for 4 per year or whatever. So they will either need to come up with some way to force teams into it or look to move onto the next stage of a franchise or let it decline.

I reckon the Panthers might have an obligation under the terms of the sale, at least once. The Bengals could probably be persuaded what with their poor attendances. There will always be the Jags. But it's not getting to 3-4 games per year plus 1 in Mexico.

Remember the NFL are only 1 year into the 10 year deal and given no games this year may reset to 10 years from 2019 to play 2 games a year at White Hart Lane.

Levy is an astute businessman so I am sure there will be massive penalties on the NFL if they don’t fulfill the 2 matches there a year, plus I am sure the Jags will continue wanting to play at Wembley. That makes minimum 3 matches a year they need to deliver in U.K. a year.

[GP990]

Originally Posted by Mohamed7

So in addition to the Jaguars, we can expect to see the Raiders, Chargers and the Rams because of their temporary home status in the U.S

Looking at the home games for those teams next year, there's a good opportunity to get 2 of the 3 teams that haven't been to London yet to come over next year:

Texans @ Jaguars
Packers @ Chargers

I am pretty sure those will be 2 of the 4 London games next year.

The Jaguars will be scheduled to play two of the teams that haven't been over before.

The schedule rotation means AFC South teams will have NFC South teams in their schedule, so I wouldn't be surprised to see the Jags vs Panthers as one of the Wembley games.

[WayneF]

I hope that the Jags stay for 2 games and the other is Falcons

[Divv3k]

Originally Posted by European Bob

Indeed. See Chargers last year.

It's one home game every season. The Chargers relocation to LA was announced after the 2017 International Series games had already been confirmed.

The rule was approved in 2014. There's multiple articles online confirming this. Here's one:
https://www.si.com/2014/10/22/nfl-in...obal-expansion

Owners approved new rules at the recent league meetings to secure more London “home” teams, as first reported by the Sports Business Journal. Super Bowl host teams, starting with the next bid, will give up one home game to London over a five-year period, and any future teams using a temporary stadium (the Vikings are exempt) will play one game per season in London.

[Mohamed7]

Divv3k, thanks for the link, I was looking for it myself because I was sure I had read about this before, hence why I was so adamant on my stance.

Originally Posted by European Bob

We still have less than half the teams in the league who have given up a home game - and that's including the Cardinals from Mexico 2005. Most of those who haven't already clearly don't want to and won't unless forced. A lot of those are teams who will never host a Super Bowl (Green Bay, Pittsburgh, New England, Baltimore etc) unless there is a radical rethink on that. Once we get the Raiders, Rams and Chargers into their new homes in the next 2 years or so, there are no new stadiums on the horizon. Given only one team hosts the Super Bowl each year, that suggests we are going to have a real shortage of 'home' teams for IS games - certainly not enough for 4 per year or whatever. So they will either need to come up with some way to force teams into it or look to move onto the next stage of a franchise or let it decline.

I reckon the Panthers might have an obligation under the terms of the sale, at least once. The Bengals could probably be persuaded what with their poor attendances. There will always be the Jags. But it's not getting to 3-4 games per year plus 1 in Mexico.

As malcy93 already pointed out, the NFL have an agreement with Spurs to play at least two games per year in London for the next 10 years. Not only do Spurs have massive financial clauses in place to protect them from any scenario in which the NFL may renege on their contractual obligations - the NFL itself contributed millions of dollars towards Spurs' new ground which has been designed and constructed with NFL requirements in mind.

In my opinion, the NFL will eventually come up with a system where - in the absence of volunteers - teams are drawn at random to give up home games and they'll be forced to do so. It's not a disaster for the teams, giving up 1 home game every 5 years at most is not exactly destructive. Make no mistake about it, the NFL International series is here to stay. The NFL is a money-making machine and money trumps all else, we know that. The opportunity to have an extra TV broadcast window (9.30am EST in the U.S for London games) is extremely lucrative for the NFL and their broadcast partners. The International Series is a gigantic revenue generator and I just don't see an end in sight.

[Mohamed7]

Originally Posted by WayneF

I hope that the Jags stay for 2 games and the other is Falcons

The Falcons are due to come to London soon because they're hosting the Superbowl this year, I would love to see Panthers @ Falcons as the first game at Spurs' new ground, that would be an amazing experience. I love Carolina's new offensive scheme and ATL with all their key pieces back from injury for 2019 should be formidable next year.

Originally Posted by GP990

The Jaguars will be scheduled to play two of the teams that haven't been over before.

The schedule rotation means AFC South teams will have NFC South teams in their schedule, so I wouldn't be surprised to see the Jags vs Panthers as one of the Wembley games.

I think you're getting mixed up with another division. The Jaguars' home schedule for 2019 and 2020 will have an AFC East team (not NFC South), who have all been to London already. Jaguars host the Texans in 2019 as the only team that haven't been to London.

[Pedal Bin]

The Jags schedule for 2019 is:

Home:
Colts
Texans
Scum
Chiefs
Chargers
Saints
Bucks
AFC East (probably 4th place at our current rate)

Away:
Colts
Texans
Scum
Raiders
Broncos
Panthers
Falcons
AFC North (plan on 4th place)

I would guess Texans for the Jags at Wembley as the NFL are keen to get the remaining three teams over. Discussions were held on Friday (Roger Goodell mentioned this at the UK NFL Live Event at Wembley on Saturday morning) so they probably know who the teams are already. He gave no hints.

Goodell said the biggest problem for the Packers is that they clearly will never give up a home game and teams that host them do not want to give that match up to the IS Series as they know it will sell out. The NFL is "looking at ways to 'incentivise' these Franchises" to give up a Packers game. So they are going to throw money at a team and eventually when they throw enough one will give in and the Packers will come. The Jags played the Packers two years ago and that was one of the games that Shan Khan said would not be considered to be played at Wembley.

As you can see we play the Raiders, Panthers and Falcons away next year so potentially the Jags could do two back to back games one as the home team and the other as the away. I know they wanted to try that however it could be argued that it would give them an unfair advantage as they would already be in the UK. However I think we need any advantage we can get at the moment!

[Mohamed7]

Originally Posted by Pedal Bin

I would guess Texans for the Jags at Wembley as the NFL are keen to get the remaining three teams over. Discussions were held on Friday (Roger Goodell mentioned this at the UK NFL Live Event at Wembley on Saturday morning) so they probably know who the teams are already. He gave no hints.

True, I was at the event and that's the feeling I had as well, that they already know whose coming over next year. This is also why on social media one of the most respected insiders covering the Jets said we could expect to see them come over next year.

If I had to guess:

Texans @ Jags
Packers @ Chargers
Giants @ Jets (New York derby in London, that would be pretty cool)
Panthers @ Falcons

Originally Posted by Pedal Bin

As you can see we play the Raiders, Panthers and Falcons away next year so potentially the Jags could do two back to back games one as the home team and the other as the away. I know they wanted to try that however it could be argued that it would give them an unfair advantage as they would already be in the UK. However I think we need any advantage we can get at the moment!

I can never see a scenario in which one team plays two games in London in the same season. Just ain't happening.