NFL Team in London??

**cycopath25** · 06-29-2009, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by mplscyclone

You gotta be kidding me. For any sport outside of baseball, you'd have to pay me to go to a professional development game, even if I had a hometeam in the league.....

People want the best product; they aren't going to want to pay for a bunch of crappy football players all playing themselves. Football is popular here, and look how many developmental leagues have failed...

Let's agree to disagree

**pujolsman** · 06-29-2009, 03:25 PM

No, I like only having to hear one national anthem before NFL games.

**mtowncyclone** · 06-29-2009, 03:38 PM

[QUOTE=mplscyclone;1121944]Football is popular hereQUOTE]
as in football or football?

**mplscyclone** · 06-29-2009, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by WalkingCY

I would love it if this state could actually have a PRO sports team.....especially an NFL team. The Iowa Farmers. Would be sweet.

But, the thing is......Iowans are known to travel.......KC is too close, Minneapolis and Green Bay is not bad.....and Chicago is somewhat easy to get to as well.....and Iowan's do it....they travel to each of these teams.

There is no way that Iowa could have an NFL team..... we just don't have the poplulation for success. IMO, the only Pro team we could handle or have would be an NBA team. I mean, Portland has a team....not too big of a city....but that would be about it for DSM.

Not only do we not have the population for success for the NFL, but there it's all about Cyclones and Hawks. I think an NFL would hurt that.

Also, Des Moines is NOT friendly to sports... At all... Everyone is a tight wad, and a majority like to stay at home with their families... NBA would not do well here at all either.

The next market for the NBA would probably be Kansas City. It makes the most sense.

For NFL, it probably will be LA, but it will probably fail as well. Like I said before, it's already been attempted and failed.... Even though it's a large city, it's NOT a football city. It's baseball and soccer, especially with the Latin American prominence in LA

**mplscyclone** · 06-29-2009, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by cycopath25

Let's agree to disagree

That's fine with me. If you think a developmental leagues are where it's at, then go ahead.... We get 10k in a 16k arena for an AFL game and we think we're the bomb. We put up 5-6k in a 10k baseball stadium and that's a success.

For the NFL, you need to sell 50-60k seats. You aren't going to do that in a developmental league. People want to watch the stars; these aren't hardcore fans that are going for the love of the game...

**jdoggivjc** · 06-29-2009, 10:06 PM

LA didn't just lose two teams - they lost two teams in the same offseason. If that's not a sign of an unfriendly football environment, I don't know what is.

LA may eventually get its NFL team, but I'm not exactly cheering for that day.

**jdoggivjc** · 06-29-2009, 10:13 PM

As far as a team in London, I'm not a big fan of it. What division would you put the team in? the AFC or NFC East divisions would be the most logical (although that's debatable), but those two divisions already have established rivalries. Are you really going to break up a Miami/Buffalo/NY/NE or NY/Philadelphia/Washington/Dallas rivalry just to add London? Didn't think so. A team in London isn't going to work unless you add more European teams. Could potentially put one in Amsterdam as that was a successful franchise in NFL Europe, and Frankfurt went all the way back to the WLAF days. But even if you could find 4 cities to play in Europe, it would still be a logistical nightmare for the NFL.

**ZCyclone** · 06-29-2009, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by WalkingCY

How about a freaking team in LA?

St. Louis Rams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oakland Raiders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

both times unwilling to build them a "modern" stadium.

On the "american" football in the UK idea, the positive thinker in me wants to believe that England would rally around them (think a British version of NZ's All-Blacks). However, the pessimist/realist thinks that it'd end up being a MLS-esque escapade that would just suck dollars (or pounds i guess) and be watched a by smaller crowds.

**mplscyclone** · 06-29-2009, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by ZCyclone

St. Louis Rams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oakland Raiders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

both times unwilling to build them a "modern" stadium.

On the "american" football in the UK idea, the positive thinker in me wants to believe that England would rally around them (think a British version of NZ's All-Blacks). However, the pessimist/realist thinks that it'd end up being a MLS-esque escapade that would just suck dollars (or pounds i guess) and be watched a by smaller crowds.

Running an NFL franchise would cheaper for them though. The cost of living in London is really high. Also exchange rates would help as well. 1 dollar is 0.6 pounds. They way stuff is priced in London, it essentially would be 60 cents on the dollar if it had a UK owner. Now if it were an American owner, then it'd be looked at as $1.6 for the dollar, and that would not be attractive.

I think there are enough fans that would support a team; as said before I think many of you would be surprised by the NFL interest in London (they just don't like to admit it). It won't ever be the most popular sport there, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be successful.

I would think financially it would work for a few years. After a few years, the fans would want the team to be good, however. If they weren't improving, then interest would wane... Pretty typical of an expansion team.

Again, the biggest challenge in my mind would be convincing players to play for a franchise there. High draft picks would pull an Eli, and the free agent market would suck as well.

**TRZA** · 06-30-2009, 09:21 AM

Ummm, American Football is really hard to market overseas. There is an enormous stigma of steroid use associated with the bulked-up muscle dudes at nearly every positions. The rules are near-impossible for anyone over there to understand. It would sorta be competing with the England national Rugby team, the two rugby leagues there are fairly low levels of prefessionalism and low attendance.

The NFL owners as a whole (with a couple exceptions) are some of the best businessmen and negotiators you will find anywhere. The value of their teams has risen so much in the past 20 years, this dicussion is just another way to get their franchises to be worth more. They keep LA without a team, just so every owner can threaten to move there in order to get a super luxurious revenue rich stadiums built in places like Jacksonville. Throwing out London, Toronto, or any fast-growing American city as a potential moving destination just gives owners more leverage to milk anything they can from a small market city.

**mj4cy** · 06-30-2009, 09:24 AM

toronto would be a good thought, but too close to buffalo to sustain itself i would think.

**jdoggivjc** · 06-30-2009, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by mjones34

toronto would be a good thought, but too close to buffalo to sustain itself i would think.

There is some speculation that the Buffalo Bills would move to Toronto.

**TRZA** · 06-30-2009, 10:15 AM

The Bills claim at least 20% of their season ticket sales are from Canadians. The most populated region of Canada is just across the border in the space between Buffalo and Toronto. Even Canadians have a hard time caring about the CFL, with its low talent and goofy rules.