The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Well, I could probably type a whole page on this subject, but I haven't got the time at the moment to put all my thoughts in order, and make sense of them all.

On one level, seeing regular season NFL games in the UK sounds fantastic. The opportunity to watch two big league teams going at it full on, with starters rather than 3rd stringers, is appealing to say the least (of course, they'd probably send us the Cowboys and the Raiders, but let's not be churlish).

The new Wembley Stadium would be a great place to host a game. Then again, as was said very early on in this thread, the London Monarchs of the World League (now NFL Europe) did not last the course during the second incarnation of that league, whilst the Scottish Claymores attracted more support for longer. So, if it came to the UK, then Edinburgh "deserves" it.

But, of course, I know very well that this would have nothing to do with who deserves it or not. The NFL is a business, and this is all about expanding that business to new markets. For that reason, if the NFL came to the UK again, it would undoubtedly come to London. Germany definitely has a greater fan base at the moment (the greater US military presence there has an impact), and can make a convincing argument that a game should go there.

If I flip this around though, and consider the idea of a regular season English Premier League football game being played abroad, then I'd be appalled. I'd see it as a cynical marketing move by a game that is already awash with money. I'm inclined to see this move by the NFL in just the same way.

You see, I've had my hopes splattered by the NFL before, when the London Monarchs were taken away from us, not once, but twice, and I really don't feel much of an affilliation to the league. In a small minded and bitter way, I'd be likely to tell the NFL where to poke it's overseas expansion this time. The NFL is the best run sporting business in the world, but it hasn't got to that status by caring all that much about it's fans.

But would I sell my soul to see the Redskins rout the Cowboys at Wembley Stadium? Of course I would.

UK Skins Fan wrote:the Scottish Claymores attracted more support for longer. So, if it came to the UK, then Edinburgh "deserves" it.

In their lasr few years the Claymore played in Glasgow - even the NFL knows the only good thing to come out of Edinburgh is the Glasgow train! I agree with UK Skins Fan that - IF the UK got it - then London is the only sensible option from a business stand point.

Aside from all the arguments pro and con, there remains the fact that is surely must be a hell of a logistical nightmare. I was actually just checking for flights home to the UK next August to possibly visit my folks and it would set me back at least $1,000 before I even set foot in the country. How many players on an NFL team? And coaches? And assorted personnel? And, no doubt, they would want to take their own chefs and food.... And then there is the hotel bills. And the equipment to be trasported there and back - hell, it cost me a grand to shipa few boxes of cds and books when I immigrated to the States so christ knows how much it would cost to cart an NFL team's game equipment. It just doesn't seem financially viable although, I suppose, the NFL has money to burn.

Also, jetlag has to be considered. Say the Raiders are to play the Patriots. Most of Europe is 6 hours ahead of Boston and the flight would be about six hours too. Trust me, it knackers you. Then the Raiders have to fly, what?, 5 or 6 hours just to get to NY/Boston and then another 6 to get to Europe. By the time these guys take the field the first stringers will be playing like 3rd stringers. And who the hell wants to see that?

If this idea was for pre-season like they have done in the past in Europe and Japan then fair enough. No problem. But the regular season? Nah. Bad idea.

If the NFL wants to expand it's fanbase and make some $$$ then it would make a bit more sense to tap the massive Chinese market like soccer clubs Manchester Utd and Glasgow Celtic (to an extent) have.

it would be nice to get international interest to the point where international competition would happen with teams from other nations but just having the colts play the seahawks in germany is idiotic. where are the colts fans in berlin? are the seahawk fans there too? and what about the fans in america??

if i had seasons tickets and the leauge decided to play one or two of the games in a country i could not go to i would flip out. its unfair to the fans that make the NFL possible. the people that watch TV every week and get sponsers cash. the people that sell out stadiums across the country every week. the people that dress in hog masks and dresses in the stands, its even unfair for those cowgirl fans.

there are only so many home games in a year. the season is short compared to lets say baseball.. they could take half of the baseball games in a season and move them to the moon and no one would know. but to take 1 of 8 home games and move it out of the country forcing a true fan to spen 5 large on a plane ticket half way around the world is just mean.

if they sell out in germany and they sell out in GB and they sell out and tokyo and all of these places begin their own leagues and we create an international football leauge then it might be worth it, maybe.. but in the short term fans are not going to like this.

TincoSkin wrote:it would be nice to get international interest to the point where international competition would happen with teams from other nations but just having the colts play the seahawks in germany is idiotic. where are the colts fans in berlin? are the seahawk fans there too? and what about the fans in america??

if i had seasons tickets and the leauge decided to play one or two of the games in a country i could not go to i would flip out. its unfair to the fans that make the NFL possible. the people that watch TV every week and get sponsers cash. the people that sell out stadiums across the country every week. the people that dress in hog masks and dresses in the stands, its even unfair for those cowgirl fans.

there are only so many home games in a year. the season is short compared to lets say baseball.. they could take half of the baseball games in a season and move them to the moon and no one would know. but to take 1 of 8 home games and move it out of the country forcing a true fan to spen 5 large on a plane ticket half way around the world is just mean.

if they sell out in germany and they sell out in GB and they sell out and tokyo and all of these places begin their own leagues and we create an international football leauge then it might be worth it, maybe.. but in the short term fans are not going to like this.

Uh... each team loses ONE home game TOTAL in SIXTEEN YEARS.

That's it.

That's one game to give up out of a total of 108 games (16 years x 8 home games). Hardly earth shattering... not even 1%. You make it sound like it's one home game per season. It simply means that for ONE game some time in the next 16 years... the Redskins will play a home game in Canada, Mexico or Europe.

Hopefully it'll be in Toronto... maybe I can start lobbying for it now.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that people would find that unreasonable.

And then to add that 'it might be worth it' if it creates an international league? Well um... you don't usually get to butter both sides of the bread like that... if you want to create an international league... then you're going to first have to create international interest.

And the way you do that is by putting on some live events there to let them see what football is really all about.

Besides... to me it sounds like a perfect opportunity for a THN road trip no matter where it is.

BossHog wrote:

Besides... to me it sounds like a perfect opportunity for a THN road trip no matter where it is.

That does it - I'm actively campaigning against any games coming to the UK. No way do I want you lot coming over here.

We're still trying to genetically engineer all those Yank genes from our gene pool after WW2; no need to compound the problem with a bunch of hogs...

I forget where I read this (it was linked from one of those blogs on the Post), but somone suggested expanding the season to seventeen games and having each team play one game at a neutral site. Some of those could be abroad, and some could be in different cities in the United States. You know games would sell out in Los Angeles, Columbus, Portland, etc. I think it could work.

EDIT: Found it:

17-GAME SEASON NOT SO STOOPID, AFTER ALL?

We mentioned on Thursday that one possible solution to the problem of lifting a home game from two teams per year in order to aid in the foreign growth of the NFL would be to expand the season to 17 games. Such an approach would also get rid of the annoying problem of teams that finish not above .500 or below .500 but on .500.

We then realized how dumb that is, since it would mean that the 30 other teams that don't play a home game in another country would end up with an unequal number of home and road games each year.

But maybe we've discovered plutonium by accident.

Why not play 17 games, and then use each team's extra home game as a way to play 16 games per year at a neutral site?

Under this approach, each team would be involved in eight home games, eight road games, and one neutral site game. And the 16 games wouldn't have to be played exclusively in other countries.

How about a game in Ohio Stadium in Columbus?

Or at Penn State? Or at South Bend? Or in the Big House at Ann Arbor?

We know, we know. There would be all sorts of logistical issues. At many college stadiums beer can't be sold, by law.

Still, the possibilities are fascinating (at least to football dweebs like us). And we think that if the foreign games are successful the next step could be a 17-game season, with 16 games per year on neutral turf.

UPDATE: Several readers have suggested that the NFL's L.A. dilemma could be solved by playing multiple "neutral site" games per year at the Los Angeles Coliseum. We like it.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

One word comes to mind: GLOBALIZATION. The NFL is a business, the teams are their product and the owners are looking for ways to get a bigger market share and more $$$$.

It won't happen in my lifetime, but if there is ever a game in Panama, you are all wellcome in my house. US citizen doesn't require visas and you can get direct flights from Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York & Atlanta.

Gus

Steve Spurrier III wrote:I forget where I read this (it was linked from one of those blogs on the Post), but somone suggested expanding the season to seventeen games and having each team play one game at a neutral site. Some of those could be abroad, and some could be in different cities in the United States. You know games would sell out in Los Angeles, Columbus, Portland, etc. I think it could work.

EDIT: Found it:

17-GAME SEASON NOT SO STOOPID, AFTER ALL?

We mentioned on Thursday that one possible solution to the problem of lifting a home game from two teams per year in order to aid in the foreign growth of the NFL would be to expand the season to 17 games. Such an approach would also get rid of the annoying problem of teams that finish not above .500 or below .500 but on .500.

We then realized how dumb that is, since it would mean that the 30 other teams that don't play a home game in another country would end up with an unequal number of home and road games each year.

But maybe we've discovered plutonium by accident.

Why not play 17 games, and then use each team's extra home game as a way to play 16 games per year at a neutral site?

Under this approach, each team would be involved in eight home games, eight road games, and one neutral site game. And the 16 games wouldn't have to be played exclusively in other countries.

How about a game in Ohio Stadium in Columbus?

Or at Penn State? Or at South Bend? Or in the Big House at Ann Arbor?

We know, we know. There would be all sorts of logistical issues. At many college stadiums beer can't be sold, by law.

Still, the possibilities are fascinating (at least to football dweebs like us). And we think that if the foreign games are successful the next step could be a 17-game season, with 16 games per year on neutral turf.

UPDATE: Several readers have suggested that the NFL's L.A. dilemma could be solved by playing multiple "neutral site" games per year at the Los Angeles Coliseum. We like it.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

That's a really good idea, and a fair compromise. It's win-win.

I love that idea. The NFL would become a phenomena. Collee fans would be drawn in. I think a NFL game at Williams- brice Stadium in Columbia, SC, would be great. I think it would definetly Sell out and be great for the league.

You guys just don't seem to get it.

Gate receipts are insignificant in importance to the TV contract money. The league isn't going to get more TV money for showing a game in NC. They're only going to get more TV money if they can suck money from foreign country's big networks. They can't charge a bigger fee to ESPN because a game was in South Carolina instead of at Fed Ex. They CAN charge someone like Sky network a giant chunk of money to start showing ALL NFL games in Europe because they ESTABLISHED THE MARKET with a few live events.

The ENTIRE NFL salary cap system is built on the TV revenues. The only way to garner more money for the LEAGUE as opposed to individual cities is to sell more TV contracts... AND it will also have the reciprocal effect of giving EACH team more money for the cap. By constantly concentrating on growing the TV revenues and paying entire team's salaries with the money, league owners are able to earn bigger profits. In fact, with the amazing setup of the current system, it's virtually impossible for a team not to be profitable regardless of the market - after all, their biggest expense (salaries) are paid by league TV money.



This decision is the smartest way to grow the league as a whole and whether any of you realize it or not, the NFL obviously does... and presumably owners agreed to it.

The NFL usually know what's best. That's why it's the best run sport on the planet.

BossHog wrote:You guys just don't seem to get it.

Gate receipts are insignificant in importance to the TV contract money. The league isn't going to get more TV money for showing a game in NC. They're only going to get more TV money if they can suck money from foreign country's big networks. They can't charge a bigger fee to ESPN because a game was in South Carolina instead of at Fed Ex. They CAN charge someone like Sky network a giant chunk of money to start showing ALL NFL games in Europe because they ESTABLISHED THE MARKET with a few live events.

The ENTIRE NFL salary cap system is built on the TV revenues. The only way to garner more money for the LEAGUE as opposed to individual cities is to sell more TV contracts... AND it will also have the reciprocal effect of giving EACH team more money for the cap. By constantly concentrating on growing the TV revenues and paying entire team's salaries with the money, league owners are able to earn bigger profits. In fact, with the amazing setup of the current system, it's virtually impossible for a team not to be profitable regardless of the market - after all, their biggest expense (salaries) are paid by league TV money.



This decision is the smartest way to grow the league as a whole and whether any of you realize it or not, the NFL obviously does... and presumably owners agreed to it.

The NFL usually know what's best. That's why it's the best run sport on the planet.

Actually Boss, I think it's you who doesn't seem to get it. Yes, TV money funds the league. But the reason the Redskins are the most profitable franchise, has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with marketing and merchandising. By adding an extra game to every season, the league will still get the all the TV money from a regular 16 game season, and they will also get additional revenue from an extra game. Nothing is ever taken away from season ticket holders, and fans in other countries, and around America would still get a chance to see their team in person, even if they don't live close to an NFL city. This 17th game idea is win-win. More revenue, with all the advantages of the current system. What is wrong with that?

Actually merchandise money is split by all teams, so i'm not really sure what you're trying to say. Doesn't matter how many jerseys, and hats you sell... league rules dictate that it gets split up.

The league isn't going to use the Redskins as a barometer.... they know that it's one of the largest 'brands' in the world... it's the lower profile teams that the NFL has to worry about keeping fiscally content.

I don't know if you're asking ME what's wrong with a 17th game... Ive never even commented on it...

Not much new in here, but it shows that the story is gaining momentum on this side of the water too:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/american_football/6113938.stm

Even though I am against the idea of plaing in any other country other than the US, it would be nice to see football become the greatest sport in the "world". We all know soccer is "technically" the greatest/most popular sport. Given enough time, we could dominate football on the olympic stage (after everyone has adopted football).

Dolphins | Team will play home game in Great Britain in 2007
Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:32:38 -0800

Howard Balzer, of NBCSports.com, reports the Miami Dolphins will be the home team for a regular season game in Great Britain during the 2007 season, according to The Sports Xchange. The game will likely be played in London's Wembley Stadium. The stadium has undergone a renovation and will be able to seat 90,000 fans for the game. Twickenham Stadium, which seats 83,000 fans, could be the other option to host the game.

Giants | Team could play in Great Britain in 2007
Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:44:10 -0800

Howard Balzer, of NBCSports.com, reports the New York Giants might play a game in Great Britain during the 2007 regular season, according to sources who told The Sports Xchange. Sources claimed the NFL is leaning toward having the Giants face the Miami Dolphins, with the Dolphins being the "home" team for the game

Bills | Team could play in Great Britain in 2007
Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:42:10 -0800

Howard Balzer, of NBCSports.com, reports the Buffalo Bills might play a game in Great Britain during the 2007 regular season, according to sources who told The Sports Xchange.

KFFL

Miami is the home team.
I hope the Gints have to take that trip instead of the Bills and play the Skins the following week.

A buddy in the UK says it is Dolphins/Giants

1niksder wrote:..Miami is the home team.
I hope the Gints have to take that trip instead of the Bills and play the Skins the following week.

great point iniksder - I hope this happens - this would also be a fair "payback" for that game last year where New Orleans had to play a "home" game against the giants in NY

So, it's official:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9933984
I can't see any way that the game won't be at Wembley. It's a sensational looking stadium, and I hope to make this my first trip to see the place close up.

Looks like I'll be a Dolphins fan for a few hours.

sooo unfair...

To me thats dumb, I really hate it

What's dumb? And why do you hate it so?