91Èȱ¬

Still not sold on a London franchise. Apart from the travel implications, I just don't think you'd get the crowds for home games. We love seeing both teams visit London, the whole dynamic would be changed were one of the teams to be based here, the unique appeal of the Wembley game as we have it now would be lost.

Another regular season game in the UK (or elsewhere in Europe) would be great, but a franchise based here... doesn't quite work for me.

I'm a little bemused by the comment about cheering the punts - the Denver punter got jeered for at least two rubbish punts, and there were a couple of decent punt returns that got good cheers, as they should. Actually, the biggest cheers - until the game finally sparked late in the third quarter - were for video highlights of the Cowboys getting minced at home by the Jags. Actually, seeing that on the jumbo screens was almost worth the admission money alone.

1st??

Excellent!

I went to the game in '08 and it was immense, then again that was a high scoring game. But you're right, the fans knowledge is essential to the UK being taken serious as a prospect for American Football.

I do struggle with the concept of a single UK based franchise as this wouldn't work too well for away support, and it would mean almost all home games would be exclusive for the London silly nannies or whatever franchise they get.

Surely a better option is to have 4 teams playing an individual AFC/NFC Atlantic league, playing regular season games home & abroad that way we get to see regular season games here & exhibit talent on US turf, with the possibility of a wildcard pick coming from this sort of division?

I can't see a franchise working here. Lets see how good the wembley pitch is for the next England match!! I can't see too more many games being played regularly at wembley as it is the home of Football and not American Football so if we were to have a francise it would have to be somewhere else.

A yearly one off game will always attract a lot of fans but when the NFL tried to get a European version going it wasn't that well supported or followed. Also as you said logistics off playing here and going away possible to the ther side of america to play a game for a week wouldn't work because of the huge time zones and jetlag.

What about a European team, rather than a London Based one.

A team that could be based somewhere in Germany, which I believe has a big NFL following, but plays games in London, Edinburgh, Barcelona, Paris, and a host of other places.

If the schedule was organised with a bit of thought going into the travel implcations, it might work better than a purely London based team.

I dunno, just a thought.

I have to agree with Eddie-George, a regular game or two per season will keep the crowds coming and raise the profile over here while raising Londons profile in the USA, but a franchise is a terrible idea, not just for crowd levels but the idea of travelling over the Atlantic for every away game is just stupid, what next a Rollerball type league in 18 major cities around the world?

i am amazed at the level of pessimism at the prospect of a london franchise i think it would be great for the sport, the travelling is not further for the Patriots to travel to London as it is to travel to San Diego, what happens in cities who previously had no franchise and were awarded one the fans in those cities probably had allegiances to other teams and switched, there will always be some that dont but most will

I am a casual fan but I went with my mate who’s well into it. I have to say I thought it was fantastic. Football (soccer) administrators could learn a few things from the way the customer is put at the heart of the NFL offering. I couldn’t believe I was watching action from other games minutes after it happened. There was no sign of that for us Owls on the away end at the Valley the day before. In fact the 2 sports-watching experiences could not be further apart. I like the Steelers but I cheered for the 49ers as it was their home game. The first half was dull as ditchwater but the action in the 2nd was fantastic. I also found it took about a quarter to ‘get my eye in’ and follow the ball through the plays. I’d watch one of these a season for sure. If there was a UK franchise I’m sure I would get drawn into it. Would it be so impossible to play 8 home games in 8 different UK cities? I could see myself at Manchester/ Liverpool and Sheffield for instance. It’s not like we lack the stadia. I noted how many fans were Scots / Irish and Germans. What about 5 in the UK and 1 each in Dublin and Germany? The Atlantic Islanders. That’s what I’d call em.

I agree witht he Euro franchise idea. That i think is the one that makes most sense. I don't think you could sell 80000 tickets for 8 games in 1 city. Much like the Super 14 rugby i would imagine that they'd play home and away in long blocks as opposed to HAHAHAAH or whatever. Euro franchise seems the way to go, NFL Europe was popular in Germany.

Regardless, great entertainment eventually. Who do you think or who would you like over here next?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"Sunday's meeting between the San Francisco 49ers and Denver Broncos at Wembley Stadium was another unmitigated success for the NFL."
"This is not some public relations spin being churned out by the league office."

I'd give such pronouncements more credibility if they weren't being uttered by someone who is being paid by the NFL.

Re #6
The flight time from San Diego to Boston is around 5 hours, but is only a 3 hour time difference. New York to London is a five hour time difference, Los Angeles to London is 8 hours. These are not inconsequential differences and would be difficult logistics to overcome-but not impossible.
The idea of a London team playing 8 straight games at home or away, would seem to give London an advantage.

However, the biggest problem is getting the players. 90-95% of the players would be American, most I am sure would prefer to be based in the US. The Federal Government would insist they pay income in the US-since they would qualify for resident tax status AND the UK government would demand income tax on residency.
I don't think any UK government would be prepared to sign a law to protect millionaire NFL football players from paying taxes.

Then there is the TV contracts. For a London team to maximize commercial revenue they would need big bucks from US television. Would US/UK television companies pay for a London franchise? I don't believe they would.

Maybe rather than look to create a european franchise why don't they bring the whole league to Europe for a round of matches?

for example: 2 matches in England, 2 matches in Germany and so forth. being honest i'm not a huge follower of american football so i wouldn't know whether this would work.

any thoughts?

If you went for a franchise, the novelty of this once a year spectacle would wear off and if the team didn't do well it would soon be playing to poor crowds ...and I agree with the comments about attracting American players

You would also have to do something about the price of tickets; even in the US you would want something better than 10 rows from the roof at $115 (£72.50) per ticket. From the West Midlands, I estimate it cost me close to £500 for my party of 4 to attend the game ...and don't start me on the poor organisation of the tailgate party that caused endless queues for most every attraction.

That said, I would have walked barefoot over hot coals & broken glass to see the 49ers and a glimpse of Jerry Rice.

49'ers v Broncos is like Wigan v Wolves (no disrespect).

I dont quite get the obsession with having a franchise based outside of the US. Yes the UK has a lot of passionate NFL fans but the reality is those fans are already fans of existing NFL teams (I did actually count all 32 teams represented on Sunday).
Secondly, the travelling would be ridiculous. Ok so they give a bye week to the franhcise travelling to the UK the week following the game and the London team has their bye week during week 17. Then what in the playoffs though? Games arranged at very short notice are hard enough as it is without numerous transatlantic crossings! Lets be honest, we don't even want Rangers and Celtic to cross the border and join the Premiership so do you honestly think there's a future in the suggestion that 'America's game' will be shared with us on a permanent basis!? Haha yeh right

Apart from that, I went on Sunday and I thought it was pretty poor generally. I know the NFL or English NFL fans can't legislate for the quality of the game that's being played so that aspect is just unfortunate. Still, the atmosphere was as dire as Highbury on a bad day. It's kind of inevitable when you have 32 sets of fans and only two of them have a genuine interest in the outcome.
I've been to Miami and Pittsburgh this year to watch the Steelers and I honestly didn't think Sunday's game day experience bore any real resemblance to an NFL game in the US. I'm not criticizing the fact they have a game here as not everyone gets to see the likes of Brees or Brady throwing bombs but I certainly wouldn't call it an unmitigated success.

A London franchise would work, but maybe not as a stand alone outfit. If there was sufficient support, a 4 team European division would be a good move, with London, Frankfurt, Barcelona and Amsterdam (old NFL Europe cities). That would give 3 away games in Europe and only 5 in the USA. This could be made up of 2 double headers (consecutive away games) and one single game prior to the bye week. The travelling is then a lot more manageable. US teams playing the European division could play the two away games as a double header. One trip and they are done.

There are a lot more hoops to go through before this could ever happen. But if the commissioner is making serious noises about London, you have to take notice.

Is that right Zola? How many times have Wigan and Wolves won the top division title in the last 50 years?

Erm, Standfree, Warriors are one of THE most successful teams in rugby - of EITHER code, let alone some silly game played in michelin suits & bike helmets:

* World Club Challenge Winners: 1987, 1991, 1994.
* World Club Challenge Runners-Up: 1992
* Super League Champions: 1998, 2010
* Super League Runners-Up: 1996, 2000, 2001, 2003.
* Super League League Leader's Shield Winners: 2010.
* League Championship Winners: 1908/09, 1921/22, 1925/26, 1933/34, 1945/46, 1946/47, 1949/50, 1951/52, 1959/60, 1986/87, 1989/90, 1990/91, 1991/92, 1992/93, 1993/94, 1994/95, 1995/96.
* League Championship Runners-Up: 1909/10, 1910/11, 1911/12, 1912/13, 1923/24, 1963/64, 1970/71, 1974/75, 1985/86, 1988/89.
* Challenge Cup Winners: 1923/24, 1928/29, 1947/48, 1950/51, 1957/58, 1958/59, 1964/65, 1984/85, 1987/88, 1988/89, 1989/90, 1990/91, 1991/92, 1992/93, 1993/94, 1994/95, 2002.
* Challenge Cup Runners-Up: 1910/11, 1919/20, 1943/44, 1945/46, 1960/61, 1962/63, 1965/66, 1969/70, 1983/84, 1998, 2004.
* Lancashire League Winners: 1901/02, 1908/09, 1910/11, 1911/12, 1912/13, 1913/14, 1914/15, 1920/21, 1922/23, 1923/24, 1925/26, 1945/46, 1946/47, 1949/50, 1951/52, 1958/59, 1961/62, 1969/70.
* Lancashire Cup Winners: 1905/06, 1908/09, 1909/10, 1912/13, 1922/23, 1928/29, 1938/39, 1946/47, 1947/48, 1948/49, 1949/50, 1950/51, 1951/52, 1966/67, 1971/72, 1973/74, 1985/86, 1986/87, 1987/88, 1988/89, 1992/93.
* Lancashire Cup Runners-Up: 1913/14, 1914/15, 1925/26, 1927/28, 1930/31, 1934/35, 1935/36, 1936/37, 1945/46, 1953/54, 1957/58, 1977/78, 1980/81, 1984/85.
* Premiership Winners: 1986/87, 1991/92, 1993/94, 1994/95, 1996, 1997.
* Premiership Runners-Up: 1992/93.
* Regal Trophy Winners: 1982/83, 1985/86, 1986/87, 1988/89, 1989/90, 1992/93, 1994/95, 1995/96.
* Regal Trophy Runners-Up: 1993/94.
* Charity Shield Winners: 1985/86, 1987/1988, 1991/92, 1995/96.
* Charity Shield Runners-Up: 1988/89, 1989/90, 1990/91, 1992/93.
* 91Èȱ¬2 Floodlit Trophy Winners: 1968/69.
* 91Èȱ¬2 Floodlit Trophy Runners-Up: 1969/70.
* Rugby League World 7s Winners: 1991-92.
* Middlesex Rugby Union 7s Winners: 1996.
* Carnegie Floodlit 9s Winners: 2010.
* War Emergency League Winners: 1943/44.
* Lancashire War League Winners: 1940/41.
* League Leaders Trophy Winners: 1970/71.
* West Lancashire Cup Winners: 1884/85.
* 91Èȱ¬ Sports Team of the Year: 1994.

@ MrSnake69

Agree with the first half of your post, but not the second.

The Wembley game, for the precise reason you outlined initially (fans of the game, rather than a specific team, attend), is never going to be the same as a NFL game held at home in front of the die-hard fans. I've been to Foxboro and Heinz Field, and not in a month of Sundays would I expect the atmosphere at Wembley to be comparable. But that doesn't mean I won't enjoy a game played here.

For Wembley, as with any sport where the crowd is predominantly neutral, the quality of the play is going to determine the atmosphere. And for nearly 3 quarters on Sunday, the game was pretty dire and the atmosphere subdued. But when the game opened up, the fans found their voices. They cheered equally for both teams, that's the difference with a NFL game in the US; obviously if you want the sort of authentic tribal NFL experience, you need to go to game in the US.

I think the British franchise should have to play at the olympic stadium as Wembley is the home of England football team and big events and should be kept like that. The team has to be called britain as well not England or London so we get support from round the country and set up feeder teams around britain to get young talent into American football plus cheap tickets!!!

@ The_same_Eddie-George

You're absolutely right and i'm not suggesting for a minute that they shouldn't play a game here, nor that the quality of the football in front of neutral support wasn't to blame. All i'm questioning is that was it really an unmitigated success i.e. how many fans would have left Wembley on Sunday so inspired that they either A) plan to travel to the US to see a game/buy merchandise or B) pray for a London based franchise? Because ultimately that's always been the real objective for the NFL playing a game over here, as much as we'd like to kid ourselves that they're just giving us chance to see a game!

Don't get me wrong, seeing Crabtree, Tebow, Gore (even Tedd Ginn even though I saw him in a Miami jersey in January) etc. was great so close to home so i'm not at all bemoaning the opportunity, just surprised by the media reaction to two heavily out of form franchises playing a dire game in a poor atmosphere.

How was Foxboro btw? Id like to make that my next trip but Pats look like winning the East so unless the Steelers top the Ravens I doubt it's on next year!

I think the logistics of a London franchise will make it a very difficult thing to implement. I would hope however that the NFL keeps its commitment to the UK and tries to deliver either a Superbowl or ProBowl.

I tell you what I find with people who go to Wembley - people who are relatively new the game are in awe, and leave converted. People who have watched the game for a while, especially who watched in the US, aren't any more or less enthused by the experience; but are psyched to have seen some of the game's stars live. I left with a buzz on Sunday... Frank Gore, Champ Bailey, Vernon Davies, Patrick Willis, Brian Dawkins, are huge stars. So it's a net plus for the NFL fan-base.

I think an 85k sell-out at Wembley is something to write home about. Both the Broncos and 49ers are having lousy seasons, and I haven't seen anyone make excuses for the dire first half, but the 4th quarter was pretty epic and worth the wait. It wasn't the NFL game to end all NFL games, but it had a decent climax, and I think fair enough to report it as such.

Foxboro is fun - as a Pats fan I would love it! - the fans come from miles, and the stadium is seriously well designed, great facilities etc. However I watched the Pats stomp on a weak Bills team so can't say the atmosphere was top-notch, though I'm sure it is pretty darn electric when Brady's leading a 4th quarter game-on-the-line drive... That said, I'll humbly confess that Heinz Field, in central Pittsburgh with terrible towels and all, felt more like the real deal. And that was when Kordell Stewart was stinking up the franchise, I can't imagine what it's like now...

Why does this seem as a publicity blurb for a sport desperately seeking international status?

If the NFL want to invest money in a London franchise will it have the staying power to support the venture when things start going south or will it cut and run like the failed NFL Europe?

The fact is that that this talk is always raised when the Wembley game comes around. It is simply part of the hype that surrounds this one off event. But I have never seen any project plan with any deadlines attached. Just more talk. Just more publicity.

The best oval ball event of the weekend was the Australia v New Zealand rugby international in Hong Kong. Once the NFL can match this type of game then it will deserve to be taken more seriously. So far it has failed.

Hilarious that rugby league fans come on here and belittle the NFL when their sport is a) unpopular and b) unbelievably basic. Run into each other 5 times and then kick the ball in front of tiny crowds. Great!

#11 tigermilkboy: Agree with a lot of that but tax is not an issue. The UK and US have a 'double-taxation' agreement where you do not effectively get taxed twice, as tax paid in one jurisdiction is deducted in the other - so the US citizens would still pay the same amount in total.

I'd say why not have us do exactly what Scotland, Ireland and Holland do in the CB40 in Cricket and have us simply have the UK national team as the whole franchise and have them host certain games all over the UK in (for example) London, Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh. Have the major games at Wembley, other games in Murrayfield and the Millenium Stadium and finally have the games against lower teams at Windsor Park (then again, Linfield probibly won't allow that) or Celtic Park in Londonderry.

For those stating the travel implications as a deal breaker for a London franchise: In 1946 the Cleveland Rams moved to Los Angeles at a time when there was no other team further west then the shores of Lake Michigan. Every away game was at least 1800 miles away. If they could handle it in the Forties, London in the 2010s should be a doddle.

Hilarious that rugby league fans come on here and belittle the NFL when their sport is a) unpopular and b) unbelievably basic. Run into each other 5 times and then kick the ball in front of tiny crowds. Great!
____________________

As opposed to running into each other three times and kicking?

You do realise rugby league and gridiron have their roots in the same line of sports evolution don't you?

Also, the 'unpopular' tag seems unfair for a sport that's played in two continents half way across the globe from each other. Don't confuse 'lack of international game' with 'unpopular' - Wigan Warriors were making 13K average crowds long before Latics got above 5K.

Right on Neil!

Good to see a 91Èȱ¬ pundit stick up for his opinion in a good way...over on the F1 board it's a bit of a dictatorship!

Either way I fall into the wait and see tribe because the NFL Europe failed, I think that if they are going to be serious in getting a franchise over here, they have to consider the travel implications, therefore it would be best to run a few franchises with an Atlantic Division, this way logistics would be manageable, as there would always be a game in Europe, but also that the european teams will be in the US at the same time, even run it so 2 teams play theyre away games in the first 4 weeks, then swap with the other 2 european teams.

I don't know, but there is certainly a bigger issue with just having one franchise team in Europe. As for getting players, it would be a good way to introduce the feeder series from the struggling British American Football League, which entered administration recently?