Tottenham in talks with the NFL to host American Football in new stadium

E17yid · Jul 7, 2015

ERO said:
Though I see your main point, I think it would be much worse to share the ground with another football team. I'd much rather have a team I have no connection to play a sport I don't care about at WHL, than share it with a rival. I'll rather have NFL play there than the England national team - I remember Sol Campbell and the likes getting cheered at WHL for a friendly some years ago. Much, much worse.

Are you also opposed to concerts and other events behing held at new WHL?

Mmmmm, good question. I see what you're doing.

I'm going to say yes, though if I'm being honest, I would have less of a problem with concerts and stuff if it was only once or twice during the off season.

There is one sport I'd actually like to see us host (so obviously totally contradicting myself here, he he) and that's boxing. If levy was to do a deal saying we'd host 1 or 2 big fights per year in the new stadium I'd actually love that.

You've rumbled me, well done. It is about the NFL tbh.

But it's not as well. In an ideal world I'd say no to everything. No concerts, NFL or scrabble tournaments. Nothing.

Apart from boxing.

talkshowhost86 · Jul 7, 2015

E17yid said:
At least that was with another football team.

I want to live in a world where we have a brand new state of the art stadium (like our training ground)that we dont have to share, I don't think thats to much to ask seeing as 99% of football sides have their own stadium.

I dunno, I know it's just my own thing and it's not like I'm going to boycott spurs or nothing, it just really saddens me that's all.

In that world though we remain miles behind the likes of Chelsea, City and United financially.

A deal with the NFL won't bridge that gap, but it might close it slightly. Unfortunately if we aspire to compete with the top teams, we need to be creative with how we do that, which means adopting these sorts of approaches.

It's not guaranteed to work, and we'll have to make sure it works for us, but if the alternative is just treading water then would we be happy with that?

danielneeds · Jul 7, 2015

E17yid said:
At least that was with another football team.

I want to live in a world where we have a brand new state of the art stadium (like our training ground)that we dont have to share, I don't think thats to much to ask seeing as 99% of football sides have their own stadium.

I dunno, I know it's just my own thing and it's not like I'm going to boycott spurs or nothing, it just really saddens me that's all.

I want to see trophies being paraded round the pitch, rivals vanquished. If it means letting an NFL team play there for 8 games a year on an artificial pitch - and increasing our commercial power so we don't have to worry about losing Harry Kane, or the next star we unearth, then so be it.

Football is a globalised financial industry now (I'm not happy about it, but it's the way it is). We need to be smarter and more savvy to compete. West Ham are a real threat to us in this side of London, unless they totally mess it up, their stadium will generate big money. As well as the squeeze we feel from Arsenal and Chelsea on the other side. We've no right to expect to be a top half club PL forever, we have to ensure revenue, success, and growth.

yankspurs · Jul 7, 2015

yiddo23 said:
Or like how they literally form the game around commercials? "Hey let's stop the game completely so people sitting on there couch can stare at commercials for a bit" NFL, NBA, NHL, mlb, ncaa...all have TV timeouts, what the fuck is a TV timeout? Who ever approved that idea, stopping a game for TV, thus throwing the entire natural direction of the game another way. Only in america does it take 3 hours to watch a 60 minute game (nfl), and of this 60 minutes, the ball is in play 11-17 minutes, otherwise your watching cheerleaders, replays, commercials, sideline reporters, replays, commercials, broadcasters booth, commercials, and replays..garbage, pure and utter garbage

The games are not formed around commercials. There are stoppages in play clock due to things happening during the games where sometimes there are commercials and sometimes there arent. There is no clock in baseball because there are innings and there are only commercials in between half innings and pitching changes.

E17yid · Jul 7, 2015

talkshowhost86 said:
In that world though we remain miles behind the likes of Chelsea, City and United financially.

A deal with the NFL won't bridge that gap, but it might close it slightly. Unfortunately if we aspire to compete with the top teams, we need to be creative with how we do that, which means adopting these sorts of approaches.

It's not guaranteed to work, and we'll have to make sure it works for us, but if the alternative is just treading water then would we be happy with that?

Do we have to do it though? I'm mean, if the NFL had no interest in setting up a franchise (vom) in London, would we have not laid foundations down? Is there not the vaguest chance we could build a new stadium and not having to do a deal with anyone?

Either way, I think the new stadiums effect on our results on the pitch are perhaps being over stated. Those over clubs dick all over us in dozens of other revenue streams that the new stadium won't solve.

danielneeds · Jul 7, 2015

E17yid said:
Do we have to do it though? I'm mean, if the NFL had no interest in setting up a franchise (vom) in London, would we have not laid foundations down? Is there not the vaguest chance we could build a new stadium and not having to do a deal with anyone?

Either way, I think the new stadiums effect on our results on the pitch are perhaps being over stated. Those over clubs dick all over us in dozens of other revenue streams that the new stadium won't solve.

Did you not see how long it took Arse to pay down their loans for the Emirates, with CL ever year, in a much more favourable financial climate?

King Slender · Jul 7, 2015

yiddo23 said:
Or like how they literally form the game around commercials? "Hey let's stop the game completely so people sitting on there couch can stare at commercials for a bit" NFL, NBA, NHL, mlb, ncaa...all have TV timeouts, what the fuck is a TV timeout? Who ever approved that idea, stopping a game for TV, thus throwing the entire natural direction of the game another way. Only in america does it take 3 hours to watch a 60 minute game (nfl), and of this 60 minutes, the ball is in play 11-17 minutes, otherwise your watching cheerleaders, replays, commercials, sideline reporters, replays, commercials, broadcasters booth, commercials, and replays..garbage, pure and utter garbage

And, you know, the next thing they'll do is put huge corporate logos on their kit, and shrink their team logo to where you can barely see it. Thank god our football is still pure and free from corporate claws! Oh wait......

yankspurs · Jul 7, 2015

E17yid said:
Do we have to do it though? I'm mean, if the NFL had no interest in setting up a franchise (vom) in London, would we have not laid foundations down? Is there not the vaguest chance we could build a new stadium and not having to do a deal with anyone?

Either way, I think the new stadiums effect on our results on the pitch are perhaps being over stated. Those over clubs dick all over us in dozens of other revenue streams that the new stadium won't solve.

They are being overstated. Massively. NFL or not, the bridge gap will only close slightly.

E17yid · Jul 7, 2015

danielneeds said:
Did you not see how long it took Arse to pay down their loans for the Emirates, with CL ever year, in a much more favourable financial climate?

Sometimes the road is long and hard but it's the right road to take.

I read that in a fortune cookie, I think.

IGSpur · Jul 7, 2015

ERO said:
Though I see your main point, I think it would be much worse to share the ground with another football team. I'd much rather have a team I have no connection to play a sport I don't care about at WHL, than share it with a rival. I'll rather have NFL play there than the England national team - I remember Sol Campbell and the likes getting cheered at WHL for a friendly some years ago. Much, much worse.

Are you also opposed to concerts and other events behing held at new WHL?

Exactly my logic. I would rather share with a team of a different sport than a team of the same sport. How would it be OK knowing West Ham call our home their home.

Also WHL hosted the Banks for Watson fight back in the day, were you against that.

I like the idea of our stadium being attractive enough that people want to use ti for other events. 4 NFL games over the course of a year is hardly sharing our stadium with someone else.

West Ham renting their stadium is different. Wasn't there talk of Essex potentially using it for cricket or t20s. They have no control over it. That's like you renting a room in someones house and the owner telling you their family is coming so it's going to be busy for the day and you ahving to leave adn go to your friends for peace and quiet. I wouldn't want that.

We on the other hand are inviting guests over, build up a good friendly reputation worldwide.

Each time they have TV coverage of the NFL match in London the Spurs cockerel will be all over the TV

Spurger King · Jul 7, 2015

IGSpur said:
Each time they have TV coverage of the NFL match in London the Spurs cockerel will be all over the TV

They'll probably cover it up with something more American, like a hamburger.

danielneeds · Jul 7, 2015

E17yid said:
Sometimes the road is long and hard but it's the right road to take.

I read that in a fortune cookie, I think.

Sod that. We've been waiting long enough. I was 11 when we last won the FA Cup. Levy is spot on with this deal.

E17yid · Jul 7, 2015

danielneeds said:
Sod that. We've been waiting long enough. I was 11 when we last won the FA Cup. Levy is spot on with this deal.

I think you might be disappointed with our cup win rate when we move in.

IMO, the new stadium wil pull us further away from your Everton's and the like and it will probably give us a slightly better chance of getting 4th but that's it.

jolsnogross · Jul 7, 2015

yankspurs said:
The games are not formed around commercials. There are stoppages in play clock due to things happening during the games where sometimes there are commercials and sometimes there arent. There is no clock in baseball because there are innings and there are only commercials in between half innings and pitching changes.

Commercial breaks mostly take advantage of stoppages in play, but those stoppages are then time-managed to ensure the adverts have enough time to run. And there are explicit TV timeouts if there haven't been enough 'natural' breaks in play to cover the advertising quota. All a bit alien to a footy crowd, but just part of the deal for US sports fans.

From Wikipedia:
A television timeout (or TV timeout) is a break in a televised live event to allow television advertisements to be shown. This allows commercial broadcasters to take an advertising break without causing viewers to miss part of the action.

American football (NFL): The National Football League requires twenty commercial breaks per game, with ten in each half. (Exceptions to this are overtime periods, which have none.) These breaks run either a minute, or two minutes in length. Of the ten commercial breaks per half, two are mandatory: at the end of each quarter, and at the two-minute warning for the end of the half. The remaining eight breaks are optional.[1] The timeouts can be applied after field goal tries, conversion attempts for both one and two points following touchdowns, changes in possession either by punts or turnovers, and kickoffs (except for the ones that start each half, or are within the last five minutes). The breaks are also called during stoppages due to injury, instant replay challenges, when either of the participating teams uses one of its set of timeouts, and if the network needs to catch up on its commercial advertisement schedule. The arrangement for college football contests is the same, except for the absence of the two-minute warning.

yankspurs · Jul 7, 2015

jolsnogross said:
Commercial breaks mostly take advantage of stoppages in play, but those stoppages are then time-managed to ensure the adverts have enough time to run. And there are explicit TV timeouts if there haven't been enough 'natural' breaks in play to cover the advertising quota. All a bit alien to a footy crowd, but just part of the deal for US sports fans.

From Wikipedia:
A television timeout (or TV timeout) is a break in a televised live event to allow television advertisements to be shown. This allows commercial broadcasters to take an advertising break without causing viewers to miss part of the action.

American football (NFL): The National Football League requires twenty commercial breaks per game, with ten in each half. (Exceptions to this are overtime periods, which have none.) These breaks run either a minute, or two minutes in length. Of the ten commercial breaks per half, two are mandatory: at the end of each quarter, and at the two-minute warning for the end of the half. The remaining eight breaks are optional.[1] The timeouts can be applied after field goal tries, conversion attempts for both one and two points following touchdowns, changes in possession either by punts or turnovers, and kickoffs (except for the ones that start each half, or are within the last five minutes). The breaks are also called during stoppages due to injury, instant replay challenges, when either of the participating teams uses one of its set of timeouts, and if the network needs to catch up on its commercial advertisement schedule. The arrangement for college football contests is the same, except for the absence of the two-minute warning.

Commercials only typically run 1 minute to 2 minutes. Just like any other commercial break in any other program.

TV timeouts only happen at specific time remaining but only happen after a natural stoppage of play. Either at that time remaining or after that time remaining. And if there is no stoppage through a tv timeout but one finally happens at or after the next one, commercials arent twice as long.

In the NFL and college football, there are tons of stoppage of plays for multiple things. Commercial breaks will only take place after possesion changes, after extra points, after kickoffs, injuries, 2 minute warnings and actual timeouts called by the coaches. If the 10 has already been reached, there wont be more commercials that half.

Again, the games do not revolve around commercials, but they do allow time for commercials, only AFTER natural stoppages of play.

millsey · Jul 7, 2015

If we are talking about 8 Sunday night matches per year who gives a damn. We will be paid has only for that

LSUY · Jul 7, 2015

HappySpur said:
How is it that lucrative? Gambling on long term support in a country that has a significantly bigger sport? And that draw......German support of the old Rhein Fire was mostly from ex-pats at the military bases in the area.

Putting two teams in Los Angeles would be lucrative. Putting one in Oklahoma City or Omaha would be lucrative. Putting one in San Antonio would be a better alternative to Mexico City (which would be fucking ridiculously lucrative) as there are more fans in Mexico City than in 23 of the NFL's current markets.

Putting one in London is gambling. And the NFL rarely gambles on anything.

But believe what you want.

Because London, a city with a bigger population than 39 of the 50 US states, is only capable of supporting one sport? American football is one of the fastest growing sports in the UK, in fact it's one of the few sports in the UK where participation in recent years has gone up.

Attendances will remain high because a London franchise would draw spectators from across the UK and Europe solely because it's cheaper to travel to London than it is to the States. Plus, London's corporate sector will attract the NFL. As the NFL's Vice President of Sponsorship and Media Sales says, "the corporte sector has been funfamental to the success of the NFL in the US". The London games have allowed the NFL to create two separate groups of sponsorship deals. The first London game had seven corporate sponsors, last year it had twenty one. The simple fact is London is going to generate more commercial interest than Mexico City. But most of all London gives the NFL an extra TV slot. A London franchise means that eight Sundays a year the NFL can air nationally four games in the US, six games a week in the UK and has a live broadcast it can market to the Middle and Far East.

Yes London is a gamble but the NFL knows that, hence why it's taking its time with its expansion. The NFL wouldn't be putting so much effort into the London games if Mexico City was the future.

But if you want to keep believing Omaha and Oklahoma would be more lucrative than London then keep believing what you want.

Geyzer Soze · Jul 7, 2015

L.S.U.Yiddo said:
American sports are the worst. I hate how they insist upon rules that create parity in their leagues. Why can't they be more like us and create a league where the team with the richest billionaire tends to win?

I also hate that to be a pro athlete you've got to get .. Like .. You know, get educated & that

What a stoopid idea

E17yid · Jul 7, 2015

L.S.U.Yiddo said:
Because London, a city with a bigger population than 39 of the 50 US states, is only capable of supporting one sport? American football is one of the fastest growing sports in the UK, in fact it's one of the few sports in the UK where participation in recent years has gone up.

Attendances will remain high because a London franchise would draw spectators from across the UK and Europe solely because it's cheaper to travel to London than it is to the States. Plus, London's corporate sector will attract the NFL. As the NFL's Vice President of Sponsorship and Media Sales says, "the corporte sector has been funfamental to the success of the NFL in the US". The London games have allowed the NFL to create two separate groups of sponsorship deals. The first London game had seven corporate sponsors, last year it had twenty one. The simple fact is London is going to generate more commercial interest than Mexico City. But most of all London gives the NFL an extra TV slot. A London franchise means that eight Sundays a year the NFL can air nationally four games in the US, six games a week in the UK and has a live broadcast it can market to the Middle and Far East.

Yes London is a gamble but the NFL knows that, hence why it's taking its time with its expansion. The NFL wouldn't be putting so much effort into the London games if Mexico City was the future.

But if you want to keep believing Omaha and Oklahoma would be more lucrative than London then keep believing what you want.

Cricket and rugby are pretty popular in London, no?

timfrancis · Jul 7, 2015

Spurger King said:
They'll probably cover it up with something more American, like a hamburger.

Won't they coat it in breadcrumbs?

Forums

What's new

Matches

Sportsbook

Members

Tottenham in talks with the NFL to host American Football in new stadium

Well-Known Member

Mod-Moose

Kick-Ass

Enic Out

Well-Known Member

Kick-Ass

New Member

Enic Out

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

can't smile without glue

Kick-Ass

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Enic Out

Official SC Numpty

Well-Known Member

Fearlessly the idiot faced the crowd

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads