LexingtonSpurs
Well-Known Member
- Aug 27, 2013
- 13,456
- 39,042
Spurs are not getting a London franchise.
hth
hth
New Stadium Details And Discussions
- Thread starter fozzi44
- Start date
LexingtonSpurs
Well-Known Member
- Aug 27, 2013
- 13,456
- 39,042
Kahn owns Fulham and Jacksonville - is that helping Fulham? Kroenke owns Arsenal and the Rams - is that helping Arsenal? Glazers own the Tampa Bay Bucs - is that helping United?
If ENIC bought a NFL expansion team, it would probably cost in the neighborhood of $1.5B. The last expansion team to enter the NFL was 2002 for $700M.
It won't help Spurs, and would probably hurt - given the amount of money that would have to be invested in the NFL franchise....
If ENIC bought a NFL expansion team, it would probably cost in the neighborhood of $1.5B. The last expansion team to enter the NFL was 2002 for $700M.
It won't help Spurs, and would probably hurt - given the amount of money that would have to be invested in the NFL franchise....
robertgoulet
SC Resident Crooner Extraordinaire
- Jul 23, 2013
- 3,610
- 12,552
If there is money to be made (there is) and the NFL wants a London team (they do) then Tottenham is where they'll be playing.
L-man
Misplaced pass from Dier
- Dec 31, 2008
- 9,979
- 51,367
None of those sides have a stadium adequate for NFL
TottenhamMattSpur
Well-Known Member
- Aug 31, 2012
- 10,925
- 16,007
He's tight and skint because of the stadium
LexingtonSpurs
Well-Known Member
- Aug 27, 2013
- 13,456
- 39,042
Sure - the NFL may rent the stadium - but there is no indication that ENIC are going to buy an NFL franchise.
And just adding another tenant to the stadium will not deliver a lot of money to ENIC, and there is no indication that ENIC would even invest whatever money they get back into Spurs.
LexingtonSpurs
Well-Known Member
- Aug 27, 2013
- 13,456
- 39,042
Ok?
The statement was that the other owners don't want Spurs to have an NFL franchise - presumably because it gives Spurs a financial adavantage. My point is - there is no advantage to ENIC owning an NFL team - no matter where they play.
Col_M
Pointing out the Obvious
- Feb 28, 2012
- 22,778
- 45,881
Kane’s contract
I think it’s highly unlikely ENIC would buy a franchise. It will most like be an existing franchise moving. Even as a rental I’d imagine it will open the door to many revenue streams. To start with you’re expanding your brand awareness to the whole of the NFL watching public. And even though the franchise would be renting. People would still basically associate the franchise with us. Tottenham Hotspur stadium home of the London jaguars or whatever they will be called. I’d imagine it would be a multi layered deal that wasn’t just a straight forward rental agreement.
robertgoulet
SC Resident Crooner Extraordinaire
- Jul 23, 2013
- 3,610
- 12,552
Got it, I thought the argument was about an NFL team playing at the stadium as their full-time home, not necessarily ENIC buying a team.
LexingtonSpurs
Well-Known Member
- Aug 27, 2013
- 13,456
- 39,042
Nobody pays attention to the stadium when NFL teams play.
And, by the time the NFL puts a franchise in London - there will be a sponsor for the stadium, and Spurs would rarely be mentioned in any broadcast.
NFL deal will help pay off the stadium, so it has value. But, its not the kind of value that would change our transfer strategy.
It probably has more value to ENIC though the hotel its building, and in other local property development.
beats1
Well-Known Member
- Feb 22, 2010
- 30,013
- 29,561
Khan wants to move his franchise to london even if he denies it sometimes.
Us having a franchise in the stadium of course would benefit us as it would bring money to the stadium and the area
Thats not true at all
Sorry but it’s slightly ridiculous to say nobody takes notice of the stadium. You think anyone that watched the seahawks took no notice it was at Wembley ?
LexingtonSpurs
Well-Known Member
- Aug 27, 2013
- 13,456
- 39,042
When did they play?
Not sure if you’re joking or not. Anyway it’s a ridiculous point. It’s like saying every football game I watch I take no notice where it’s being played.
LexingtonSpurs
Well-Known Member
- Aug 27, 2013
- 13,456
- 39,042
This is the broadcast map:
The only people getting the Seattle-Oakland game were on the West Coast (in blue) - for a 10 AM game. Nobody watched. And people did not care that it was at Wembley - other than grumbling about having to watch two west coast teams at 10 am.
I have been to over a dozen NFL stadiums from the Iconic to Cookie-Cutter - I have had season tickets to two different teams. I used to watch NFL games religiously. Nobody cares about the stadium on TV.
The only people getting the Seattle-Oakland game were on the West Coast (in blue) - for a 10 AM game. Nobody watched. And people did not care that it was at Wembley - other than grumbling about having to watch two west coast teams at 10 am.
I have been to over a dozen NFL stadiums from the Iconic to Cookie-Cutter - I have had season tickets to two different teams. I used to watch NFL games religiously. Nobody cares about the stadium on TV.
- May 8, 2005
- 41,857
- 25,920
- Admin
- #35,259
This is the broadcast map:
The only people getting the Seattle-Oakland game were on the West Coast (in blue) - for a 10 AM game. Nobody watched. And people did not care that it was at Wembley - other than grumbling about having to watch two west coast teams at 10 am.
I have been to over a dozen NFL stadiums from the Iconic to Cookie-Cutter - I have had season tickets to two different teams. I used to watch NFL games religiously. Nobody cares about the stadium on TV.
I kinda get where you're coming from, but the same is true of football. No one cares about the stadium, yet naming rights for stadiums are a thing. It's like saying no one cares about or takes notice of the sponsor on the front of the shirt.
Except they do. Maybe not in an explicit way, but subliminally the reinforcement of seeing a brand over and over, or hearing the name repeated puts the brand in the forefront of a viewers mind.
If no one cared about the stadiums why would all the NFL stadiums have naming rights deals? Why would it be going that way here? You think companies are just trying to get rid of some spare cash?
Hoopspur
You have insufficient privileges to reply here!
- Jun 28, 2012
- 6,332
- 9,703
The business journalist for the Telegraph said he wouldn’t get what you have stated. Barely 50/50 at best. BUT it’s not Brexit and a close vote one way or the other would never get through. It would have had to be by a substantial margin. I heard a 20 minute chat about it on the radio.
