The future of London games - Page 2 - NFL UK Forums
NFL UK Mobile Logo

Go Back   NFL UK Forums > National Football League > 2019 London Games

Sponsored Links

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 28.01.2019, 11:52 PM
European Bob's Avatar
European Bob European Bob is online now
MVP
 
Join Date: 11.01.2012
Posts: 8,156
Default

I had a look at Super Bowl kickoff times. The NFL has had kickoffs between around 6pm and 6:30pm eastern time (11-11:30pm UK time) since the early 90s. Prior to that everything seems to be 4pm or later (with one 3:50pm) until you get to 1975 and 1976, which had 2pm and 3pm eastern kickoffs. That was a long time ago and the Super Bowl wasn't as big then, Super Bowl X, as it is today. I can't see them doing that these days, any more then I can see Up with People presents "200 Years and Just a Baby: Tribute to America's Bicentennial" being the half time show again like it was in Super Bowl X. And of course, 2pm eastern is still 7pm London time, and factoring in a long halftime that still means a finish approaching midnight.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #12  
Old 29.01.2019, 12:17 AM
goodkarma84's Avatar
goodkarma84 goodkarma84 is online now
GOAT
 
Join Date: 15.09.2008
Posts: 27,342
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by European Bob View Post
I had a look at Super Bowl kickoff times. The NFL has had kickoffs between around 6pm and 6:30pm eastern time (11-11:30pm UK time) since the early 90s. Prior to that everything seems to be 4pm or later (with one 3:50pm) until you get to 1975 and 1976, which had 2pm and 3pm eastern kickoffs. That was a long time ago and the Super Bowl wasn't as big then, Super Bowl X, as it is today. I can't see them doing that these days, any more then I can see Up with People presents "200 Years and Just a Baby: Tribute to America's Bicentennial" being the half time show again like it was in Super Bowl X. And of course, 2pm eastern is still 7pm London time, and factoring in a long halftime that still means a finish approaching midnight.

while i dont see a London SB ever happening for many reasons, i think it would be the sort of event where special steps could be taken to have it, so the even could be held at 10/11pm, so that wouldnt be the killer.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 29.01.2019, 09:43 PM
BuffaloG's Avatar
BuffaloG BuffaloG is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 12.10.2014
Posts: 4,274
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by European Bob View Post
As things stand, there is very little in the way of teams volunteering to give up home games for international series games.
There is no proof of that. You're adding 1 + 1 and getting 17.

Currently the NFL are in a situation where they don't need to ask for many volunteers as they have other mechanisms with so much team movement
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 29.01.2019, 10:27 PM
European Bob's Avatar
European Bob European Bob is online now
MVP
 
Join Date: 11.01.2012
Posts: 8,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuffaloG View Post
There is no proof of that. You're adding 1 + 1 and getting 17.

Currently the NFL are in a situation where they don't need to ask for many volunteers as they have other mechanisms with so much team movement
So you think the Cowboys and Patriots volunteered and the NFL said "no, no, we've got the Bengals thank you very much"?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 29.01.2019, 10:33 PM
kaldenavn kaldenavn is offline
Pro Bowler
 
Join Date: 17.10.2008
Posts: 575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by European Bob View Post
Yes, I do think the owners care about that. And you see that in their actions in not giving up home games.
That would make it the only area where they do care about the opinions of fans, then!

But that is not the only possible reason for them not wanting to relocate games thousands of miles away. There are also financial and competitive ones as to why teams would not want to do so.

With the Packers we have been told their travelling fan base makes their road games too lucrative for a home team to give up. And that is even with what the league covers for lost revenue plus the extra million dollars for volunteering. As for their home games, their on-the-record reason for not giving up one is the damage it would do to the local economy in Green Bay, not that the fans would not like it.

Incidentally, the Minnesota Vikings were still playing at the H.H.H. Dome in 2013, when they moved a game to London. But my point was not about the teams to have already played in London specifically, but that teams have been willing to volunteer. That any have been forced to do so by a league rule is something that only began two seasons ago, so is still the exception.

But just as with the league taking advantage of teams in temporary stadiums whilst they can, those teams who do not want to give up a game had no reason to do so whilst others were willing to volunteer. It does not follow that they never would because they never did, only that they will not do so if they can avoid it.

The owners collectively want these games to happen, and have lost money making them happen. If there are no teams coming forward to host then either they come to some agreement amongst themselves to "find" volunteers or they just write off their entire investment in playing internationally. As they did before 2017, I expect they will find those volunteers.

Their ultimate reason for wanting to expand internationally, and why they repeatedly voted to play these games, is to make themselves richer. And that is what I think the owners care about far more than the fans.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 29.01.2019, 10:35 PM
Pedal Bin's Avatar
Pedal Bin Pedal Bin is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 30.10.2005
Posts: 7,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodkarma84 View Post
while i dont see a London SB ever happening for many reasons.

This being the main one:


Roger Goodell "We only award the Super Bowl to cities with Franchises."
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 29.01.2019, 10:58 PM
European Bob's Avatar
European Bob European Bob is online now
MVP
 
Join Date: 11.01.2012
Posts: 8,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaldenavn View Post
That would make it the only area where they do care about the opinions of fans, then!

But that is not the only possible reason for them not wanting to relocate games thousands of miles away. There are also financial and competitive ones as to why teams would not want to do so.

With the Packers we have been told their travelling fan base makes their road games too lucrative for a home team to give up. And that is even with what the league covers for lost revenue plus the extra million dollars for volunteering. As for their home games, their on-the-record reason for not giving up one is the damage it would do to the local economy in Green Bay, not that the fans would not like it.

Incidentally, the Minnesota Vikings were still playing at the H.H.H. Dome in 2013, when they moved a game to London. But my point was not about the teams to have already played in London specifically, but that teams have been willing to volunteer. That any have been forced to do so by a league rule is something that only began two seasons ago, so is still the exception.

But just as with the league taking advantage of teams in temporary stadiums whilst they can, those teams who do not want to give up a game had no reason to do so whilst others were willing to volunteer. It does not follow that they never would because they never did, only that they will not do so if they can avoid it.

The owners collectively want these games to happen, and have lost money making them happen. If there are no teams coming forward to host then either they come to some agreement amongst themselves to "find" volunteers or they just write off their entire investment in playing internationally. As they did before 2017, I expect they will find those volunteers.

Their ultimate reason for wanting to expand internationally, and why they repeatedly voted to play these games, is to make themselves richer. And that is what I think the owners care about far more than the fans.
The thing is though, if you annoy your fans (as opposed to the fans) too much it does hit you in the pocket. Mike Brown is an example. He makes a lot out of owning the Bengals, I am sure. But not as much as he could do if he had full stadiums, fans spending money at the games, merchandise etc etc. People in Cincinnati are fed up with his ownership and have been staying away for years. The Bengals have barely been getting 50,000 for games for quite a few years now, even when they were making the playoffs every year. That's one reason why I think Mike Brown probably will agree to more London games in future.

But it is different for owners like Kraft or Jones. The opportunities from London are not particularly tied to your specific team giving up a home game. So why give up a Patriots home game when you can sit back and let the Buccaneers do it instead and still reap the rewards of international expansion? We have heard from Jags fans elsewhere on this forum who say that despite all the home games, they don't think the Jags fanbase in the UK is really that big. People might cheer them on as a 2nd team, but ultimately people are still picking the Patriots or the Packers or the Eagles as their team.

I don't know about Green Bay on the road. I mean, their fans certainly do travel in numbers. But it's not like they have a monopoly on that. Pittsburgh and Dallas fans travel in just as big numbers and they have both been over. I think it is more that the Packers have said 'no' for whatever reason. Some teams just don't like the idea of it. The Ravens were damning of the whole thing after coming last year and said they will not be back. Now, I think that was just sour grapes after Blake Bortles put on a show and the Jags hammered them. But they certainly weren't refusing for financial reasons. And if they won't come as a road team then no chance of them coming as a home team.

There are still a few teams who have not yet volunteered or been forced to host that I could see doing it. Detroit, Buffalo, Arizona, perhaps the Jets and Panthers, maybe the Titans. But that still leaves nearly the half the league.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 30.01.2019, 06:10 AM
BuffaloG's Avatar
BuffaloG BuffaloG is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 12.10.2014
Posts: 4,274
Default

A Superbowl will never happen in the UK for the simple reason no local authority would allow it.

You'd have to hold it during US prime time hours, and no local authority will sanction a major sports event in the early hours of the morning, with all the noise and transport issues that causes.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 30.01.2019, 10:54 AM
kaldenavn kaldenavn is offline
Pro Bowler
 
Join Date: 17.10.2008
Posts: 575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by European Bob View Post
The thing is though, if you annoy your fans (as opposed to the fans) too much it does hit you in the pocket.
The most important source of revenue for owners is TV rights. By a very big margin. Hence the desire for international expansion, to increase the rights value in new markets. They would still profit playing games in empty stadiums.

Obviously they want fans to turn up too, but if forced to have to make a choice they would instead just play crowd noises to keep the product appealing to home viewers, who are fans too, before prioritizing spectators.

And in my experience the paying American fans seem universal in their hate of being forced to pay for pre-season games as part of their season pass. Yet owners seem to lack any sympathy with them on that.

I would have said that your example of Mike Brown upsetting fans for years supports my claim that owners do not care about doing so, rather than your claim that they would not do anything unpopular with them.

[QUOTE=European Bob;2392945]I don't know about Green Bay on the road. I mean, their fans certainly do travel in numbers. But it's not like they have a monopoly on that… I think it is more that the Packers have said 'no' for whatever reason.[/quote

We know both because various teams and officials have said so. The Packers organization has frequently said they want to play in London as a road team, and that they have made this clear to the league. But even the Jaguars, who gave up that Cowboys game, have said they would not give up a Packers one. The last time they were scheduled to play in Jacksonville it was reported that Mark Murphy spoke to Shahid Khan about the possibility of it being played at Wembley but Khan was not willing to move it. Aaron Rodgers is even reported to have said it is something he would like to do before retiring

I really have no idea why people keep saying the Packers do not want to play internationally when there are years of unambiguous statements and direct quotes to the contrary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by European Bob View Post
But that still leaves nearly the half the league.
Why would that be a problem? The discussion you started was about the difficulty filling a slate of games, is around half the league could host it does not sound like there would be a problem.

We both agree that teams like New England and Dallas would never voluntarily give up a game when other teams will do so. Does that matter? You can make competitive arguments as to why they should — in which case the league could make it a requirement for every team, notwithstanding having to buy out conditions in leases to do so — but in London or Mexico City it makes little difference whether a team is the home one or not.

And the league has enforced on itself a period where the pool of teams for five annual international games is Chargers, Jaguars, Raiders, Rams, and just one other. If that level of annual repetition is not a problem for them, then they do not even need a pool of half the league to make the schedule much more varied. You only need six other teams for Jacksonville to be the only one hosting in back-to-back seasons in a particular city with the current schedule.

And as many of us seem to think, once the new C.B.A. is agreed the efforts to replace all of that with a London franchise will begin in earnest anyway. Which now seems likely to be the only way the league will be able to get the Packers to play here!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 31.01.2019, 09:09 PM
European Bob's Avatar
European Bob European Bob is online now
MVP
 
Join Date: 11.01.2012
Posts: 8,156
Default

[QUOTE=kaldenavn;2392951]The most important source of revenue for owners is TV rights. By a very big margin. Hence the desire for international expansion, to increase the rights value in new markets. They would still profit playing games in empty stadiums.

Obviously they want fans to turn up too, but if forced to have to make a choice they would instead just play crowd noises to keep the product appealing to home viewers, who are fans too, before prioritizing spectators.

And in my experience the paying American fans seem universal in their hate of being forced to pay for pre-season games as part of their season pass. Yet owners seem to lack any sympathy with them on that.

I would have said that your example of Mike Brown upsetting fans for years supports my claim that owners do not care about doing so, rather than your claim that they would not do anything unpopular with them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by European Bob View Post
I don't know about Green Bay on the road. I mean, their fans certainly do travel in numbers. But it's not like they have a monopoly on that… I think it is more that the Packers have said 'no' for whatever reason.[/quote

We know both because various teams and officials have said so. The Packers organization has frequently said they want to play in London as a road team, and that they have made this clear to the league. But even the Jaguars, who gave up that Cowboys game, have said they would not give up a Packers one. The last time they were scheduled to play in Jacksonville it was reported that Mark Murphy spoke to Shahid Khan about the possibility of it being played at Wembley but Khan was not willing to move it. Aaron Rodgers is even reported to have said it is something he would like to do before retiring

I really have no idea why people keep saying the Packers do not want to play internationally when there are years of unambiguous statements and direct quotes to the contrary.



Why would that be a problem? The discussion you started was about the difficulty filling a slate of games, is around half the league could host it does not sound like there would be a problem.

We both agree that teams like New England and Dallas would never voluntarily give up a game when other teams will do so. Does that matter? You can make competitive arguments as to why they should — in which case the league could make it a requirement for every team, notwithstanding having to buy out conditions in leases to do so — but in London or Mexico City it makes little difference whether a team is the home one or not.

And the league has enforced on itself a period where the pool of teams for five annual international games is Chargers, Jaguars, Raiders, Rams, and just one other. If that level of annual repetition is not a problem for them, then they do not even need a pool of half the league to make the schedule much more varied. You only need six other teams for Jacksonville to be the only one hosting in back-to-back seasons in a particular city with the current schedule.

And as many of us seem to think, once the new C.B.A. is agreed the efforts to replace all of that with a London franchise will begin in earnest anyway. Which now seems likely to be the only way the league will be able to get the Packers to play here!
Because that half the league that I haven't ruled out does not equate to half the league ruled in. The latter half includes some teams that might, but equally might not give up a home game (I'm just less confident of ruling them out than I am Green Bay or New England). It also includes team who had temporary stadiums and now do not (or won't from 2020) and are now probably less willing: Minnesota, LA Rams, the Raiders etc. And it includes teams like Kansas City that have given up a game but I don't see it being repeated. Add all those to the half or so who never have and will fight against it and that's the point of my post: will we have the demand? Time will tell but it needs more than the Jags and one Super Bowl host.


On the Packers, Alastair Kirkwood said on Talk Sport last season that one team was reluctant to come at all and they'd tried several times, but he wouldn't name them. I am certain he was talkng about Green Bay. Maybe their stance will change at some point. I can't believe every NFL team would block the Packers coming over as the game. Maybe the Jags did. Most likely whatever they say publicly the Packers aren't keen on it. Or weren't, perhaps, under Mike McCarthy.

But yes, I think the next CBA is crucial. I maintain the franchise is important as fans will eventually tire of neutral games. I did some time ago. I only go now because it is very easy for me and an afternoon out. But I wouldn't do 4 games. Not 4 random games. And if i had to get a train into London from a long way out I wouldn't bother at all now. I've seen a lot of football gsmes. As the audience matures people will prefer watching their team rather than division rivals or teams they don't care about. A franchise that local fans buy into (newer fans probably) is the better long term prospect.

Last edited by European Bob; 31.01.2019 at 09:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Sponsored Links


All times are GMT +0. The time now is 11:58 PM.