84 replies to this topic

[BobPhelan]

If the NFL puts a team in London they will have officially jumped the shark. It would be all downhill from there IMO.

[Oriole85]

ESPN: London's mayor in talks with NFL

http://espn.go.com/n...-nfl-games-city

"Sunday's game at Wembley, in front of over 80,000 fans, further cements London's reputation as the natural home of American football outside of the United States," the mayor's office said in a statement.

I just don't see how there could be a permenant team overseas. I think attracting quality FAs would be the hardest obstacle. Also, whichever division they were playing in would be a natural disadvantage of having to go back/forth. Playing a few games overseas is fine. I'm just not sure about the long-term sustainability of having a team play 10 games per year is. And I know someone is going to suggest (as has already been suggested), well they could have a division over there. It's going to be tough enough to see one team succeed, having four will be even tougher IMO.

[SportsGuy]

Such a horrible idea.

[Mackus]

I think it'd be really tough to pull off.

Maybe if they went to an 18-week schedule with two byes you could give each team that has to travel to London a bye afterwards (or before), or at least and west coast team. You'd probably also have to do four 2-game road trips for the London team and they can stay overseas during the trip (like the 49ers did earlier this year staying on the East coast).

Playoffs would be a nightmare.

[Oriole85]

I think it'd be really tough to pull off.

Maybe if they went to an 18-week schedule with two byes you could give each team that has to travel to London a bye afterwards (or before), or at least and west coast team. You'd probably also have to do four 2-game road trips for the London team and they can stay overseas during the trip (like the 49ers did earlier this year staying on the East coast).

Playoffs would be a nightmare.

I think you would have to have that London team play 2-3 games at a team at home and on the road. There would need to be a US base, most likely on the east coast. It's just such a logistical nightmare.

This could just be a leverage ploy, we've seen how valuable LA is to the NFL.

Goddell has talked about having a Super Bowl over there .

[Oriole85]

Here is Andrew Brandt's thoughts (http://espn.go.com/n... ... nfl-trades)

Q: Do you believe the NFL may have a team in London one day?

Dave in Miami



A: I do, although no time soon. The NFL is doubling its output to London next year, to two games, and each will include a brand-name team, the 49ers and Steelers. It will gauge the success of these games with a genuine interest in rotating more teams through London over a period of time, and perhaps placing a franchise in London. I believe it a reasonable possibility in the next collective bargaining agreement. (The current one runs eight more seasons.)



Travel concerns can be worked out. Teams can have byes after visiting London -- as they do now -- and the London team could train in the United States between games. Knowing how NFL teams travel, it is hard to worry about their comforts.



As with the World League 20 years ago, the NFL wants to expand its brand into a valuable new marketplace: London, Europe and beyond. The hope is that more games will lead to a yearning for more and the eventual emergence of a bidder to secure a franchise and a stadium. NFL owners are searching under every rock for new revenue streams; the possibility of a sustainable overseas market has them salivating.

[Chris B]

As has been constantly stated in this thread, I just don't see how it works. There are just too many issues.

1. The location/travel. It's going to be very difficult to make this work with the schedule. West Coast teams will likely need to have to play away against an East Coast team and then in London the next week. A flight from San Fran to London (according to some links I just found on Google) is around 13 hours.

2. The players. I know a lot of players are already away from home during the season, but they do still see their families. Unless they're willing to move their whole family to England, this just won't work. The fact of the matter is that the London team is going to have to overpay players to get them to play across the Atlantic. It's not like London can sign players from the UK to play for their team. The sport is not popular enough, and the athletes would certainly not be on par with those in the U.S.

3. London itself. I have no doubt that the NFL will find an owner that will build the team a great stadium and be able to pay the big bucks. But will London itself support American football? They have every time the NFL has had a game there. But that is only one game per season. Does the attendance and interest level change if there is a full 8 game-home schedule? Can London support another professional franchise?

[Oriole85]

[quote name="Chris B"]2. The players. I know a lot of players are already away from home during the season, but they do still see their families. Unless they're willing to move their whole family to England, this just won't work. The fact of the matter is that the London team is going to have to overpay players to get them to play across the Atlantic. It's not like London can sign players from the UK to play for their team. The sport is not popular enough, and the athletes would certainly not be on par with those in the U.S.[/quote]
With a salary cap isn't this a moot point? Steve Bisciotti has talked about this before, in discussing why he won't get into MLB, saying all teams are on the same playing field in terms of $$$, it's how you spend it. So in theory, you could spend more on one player, but that's taking $ away from the rest of the cap.

[quote]3. London itself. I have no doubt that the NFL will find an owner that will build the team a great stadium and be able to pay the big bucks. But will London itself support American football? They have every time the NFL has had a game there. But that is only one game per season. Does the attendance and interest level change if there is a full 8 game-home schedule? Can London support another professional franchise?[/quote]
[/quote]
I think that's the main issue, that it's a lot easier to sell one game played once a year(two next year) and has involved premier teams than it is to have a full season. This is why those international friendly's I believe work so well in the US. If you had these over a full season in a single city, the same interest wouldn't be there. I'd like to see how London would be supporting a 6-9 NFL team on Christmas in thier 3rd season.

[Chris B]

With a salary cap isn't this a moot point? Steve Bisciotti has talked about this before, in discussing why he won't get into MLB, saying all teams are on the same playing field in terms of $$$, it's how you spend it. So in theory, you could spend more on one player, but that's taking $ away from the rest of the cap.

Its certainly not a moot point. The London team will be under salary cap certainly. However, the London team is going to have to overpay for players due to their geographic location and taxes (I truthfully don't know how this would affect them, but if I had to guess UK would be like Canada). The London team will have to pay above the market value for players. Sure there's a salary cap. But each team has to have 53 men on their roster. London will have to find really cheap players to fill those spots if they do want to spend on stars at some positions. They would definitely be at a disadvantage.

[BSLMikeLowe]

Its certainly not a moot point. The London team will be under salary cap certainly. However, the London team is going to have to overpay for players due to their geographic location and taxes (I truthfully don't know how this would affect them, but if I had to guess UK would be like Canada). The London team will have to pay above the market value for players. Sure there's a salary cap. But each team has to have 53 men on their roster. London will have to find really cheap players to fill those spots if they do want to spend on stars at some positions. They would definitely be at a disadvantage.

And again it raises the question of exchange rates. Players will have to account for living expenses over there in pounds. Right now the exchange rate is $1.61 to 1 pound. Do the London players have to make the exchange? If so, at best you can expect that guys whose earning potential is limited time-wise are not going to want to go there....and at worst the NFLPA will go to great lengths to make it an issue. Does the team do the conversion, and pay its players in pounds based on a preset exchange rate? That's likely to hurt ownership's bottom line, since most all NFL revenues are in dollars and are divided equally. Does the London owner get a larger share of league revenues to compensate? Good luck selling that idea to the other 31 owners. And as has been mentioned, does the London team get special leeway with the salary cap, given the obvious disadvantages they face in attracting players?

This is either a leverage ploy by the league or another case of them opening their mouths without thinking first (see: 18-game schedule).

[BSLMikeLowe]

Bengals' Whitworth Wouldn't Play For London Team

Cincinnati Bengals team representative Andrew Whitworth is clear about what he'd do if he landed on an NFL team that moved to London.

 

"I would hope that I was financially able to quit," the Pro Bowl offensive tackle told Cincinnati.com. "That's what I would hope, because if I was, my papers would be the first one in."

Whitworth believes he isn't the only one who would frown upon playing overseas on a regular basis.

"I don't see that a lot of guys would want to do that," he said. "I don't see any players that would enjoy that. Sure, you may find a handful of guys that say, 'Oh hey, that'd be cool,' but the rest of them wouldn't."

Pretty much what I suspected. Most players will view being on an overseas-based team as so undesirable that it would be no better than a last resort for free agents. Never mind the logistical issues of having a team over there, from a competitive balance standpoint I just can't see it working.

[Oriole85]

Bengals' Whitworth Wouldn't Play For London Team

Pretty much what I suspected. Most players will view being on an overseas-based team as so undesirable that it would be no better than a last resort for free agents. Never mind the logistical issues of having a team over there, from a competitive balance standpoint I just can't see it working.

Just added leverage in case they go to LA, I don't think they'll actually do it. At the same time, they always want to "grow the game" so it makes sense to promote this idea. Logistically it's a nightmare. It's hard enough for two games a year, try quadrupling that with a permanent team.

[DJ MC]

Let's remember something when it comes to logistics.

 

In 1946, the Cleveland Rams moved to Los Angeles. They became the first team from a major professional sports league or one of it's forerunners to have a team on the West Coast--the AAFC started the same year with the Los Angeles Dons and San Francisco 49ers, so technically they are tied. Until the two leagues merged and the 49ers joined in 1950, the closest NFL city to LA was Chicago, 1750 miles away in the era before transcontinental flying.

 

London is twice as far from any current NFL city, however it is much faster and easier to fly that distance--and even across to the West Coast--than it was to take puddle-jumper planes and trains to LA in the late 1940s.

[DJ MC]

Just added leverage in case they go to LA, I don't think they'll actually do it. At the same time, they always want to "grow the game" so it makes sense to promote this idea. Logistically it's a nightmare. It's hard enough for two games a year, try quadrupling that with a permanent team.

Logistically it's so difficult because you are moving four separate teams, with everything they have to bring along, to a neutral site 3000 miles away.

 

If you put a team in London full-time, some of those problems are eased. Mostly because they would have a base to work from, with facilities built with football in mind for training and practice, and quite possibly a sole-occupant stadium. Then you are only bringing in one team a week, and other than the distance it would become much like any other road game.

[Oriole85]

Logistically it's so difficult because you are moving four separate teams, with everything they have to bring along, to a neutral site 3000 miles away.

 

If you put a team in London full-time, some of those problems are eased. Mostly because they would have a base to work from, with facilities built with football in mind for training and practice, and quite possibly a sole-occupant stadium. Then you are only bringing in one team a week, and other than the distance it would become much like any other road game.

How does it currently work? Don't the teams get there early and have a bye week afterwards? So would you do that system for all 8 teams that played them? My guess is the London team would play in stretches home/away. Again I just don't see it happening. Even your example 60 years ago was continental US-based and that's pretty big. What chance do seriously give this of happening? 5%? 10%? 20%?

[Chris B]

Yeah it's definitely complicated. Likely they'd play 4 games home, 4 away, 4 home, 4 away. They'd need a US practice facility during the month that they are on this side of the lake. They'd also need to have sufficient facilities in the UK so the other team can practice.

[You Play to Win the Game]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's definitely going to happen. It's just a matter of when, not if. Way too much smoke here. And bottom line, the NFL gets what it wants, period. (This is lazy analysis, I know, sorry)

[DJ MC]

How does it currently work? Don't the teams get there early and have a bye week afterwards? So would you do that system for all 8 teams that played them? My guess is the London team would play in stretches home/away. Again I just don't see it happening. Even your example 60 years ago was continental US-based and that's pretty big. What chance do seriously give this of happening? 5%? 10%? 20%?

The Patriots and Rams both received their byes the week after the London game. They both had the normal week beforehand.

 

Yeah it's definitely complicated. Likely they'd play 4 games home, 4 away, 4 home, 4 away. They'd need a US practice facility during the month that they are on this side of the lake. They'd also need to have sufficient facilities in the UK so the other team can practice.

Road teams wouldn't need facilities, any more than the Ravens need them when going to San Diego. The London team might need a US base, but that could be an extra expense. With the money the NFL makes and other uses they could have for a facility that is only occupied eight weeks a year (maybe more depending on what they want to do with training camp and offseason activities) that wouldn't be an issue.

[DJ MC]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's definitely going to happen. It's just a matter of when, not if. Way too much smoke here. And bottom line, the NFL gets what it wants, period. (This is lazy analysis, I know, sorry)

It's certainly not that simple. Just look at things like the annually-proposed 18-game schedule. Or even the eventual outcome of the Saints' fiasco. If it doesn't work, they can't force it.

 

But it doesn't seem like there are as many reasons that it wouldn't work as people think.

[Oriole85]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's definitely going to happen. It's just a matter of when, not if. Way too much smoke here. And bottom line, the NFL gets what it wants, period. (This is lazy analysis, I know, sorry)

I just don't see it at this point. I think FAs are going to be deterred to going to teams in their division, everything being equal. I think it's more likely if somehow they were able to move three other teams in addition, so they could have a whole international division. Is this team going to play Thursday games? When this team hosts playoff games, it will be a significant advantage; likewise when they have to go on the road for playoff games, they'll be at a significant disadvantage.