Saints among leading candidates for UK Game (1 Viewer)

The Saints should be no worse off, the city better off (long-term) and the home fans no worse off. In those circumstances, get over it - or better yet, get over here.



I wait all year for football season to come. If I get robbed out of a HOME game, I will be po'ed. What if we took away a home game from one of their precious soccer teams.

I guess we can say hello to the IFL

International Football League.

:rant:
 
If the NFL is going to continue to do this, the Superbowl winning team should be the one to lose its home game to play overseas every year. That is all.
 
To be honest, the one game that makes the most sense to hold overseas is the Superbowl. Few to none of the teams' fans make it to the game, it's away for both teams, there's extra time for both teams to acclimate.

It'll not happen but in terms of what makes sense, that makes sense to me in terms of logistics and fairness and exposure.

I would be shocked though if the NFL took an extra home game away from the saints after 2005-06 season. Maybe this is seen as a way to make up for it, not an exrta home game but a game where both teams are neutral.

Does anyone have any idea about the owners' part in this? I'd thought that both Miami and Giants were up for it and it was more a volunteering situation than being volunteered?
 
Does anyone have any idea about the owners' part in this? I'd thought that both Miami and Giants were up for it and it was more a volunteering situation than being volunteered?
It's definitely a 'putting your name into the hat' kind of process.

The feedback from the Dolphins and Giants organisations were very positive, they scored everything highly, except from how far the practice facilities were from Wembley.

Apart from the obvious angers about losing a home game and revenue for NOLA, I really don't see the problem.
 
I'm caught in 2 minds, one half of me is giddy with excitement about the prospect of the Saints playing a regular season game a mere 60 miles from my home, instead of the usual 4500.

But on the other hand, I've always wanted my first experience to be in the Supedome.

Saints @ Bears would be a good game to choose (UI know there Bears aren't mentioned). We've played there twice in 2 years, so I can't see many fans being OVERLY bothered about missing out on another trip to Soldier Field, when instead they can go to London(To hold it anywhere else in Britain would be dumb, London is the capital, it's where Americans want to visit when they come here, it holds the most tourist value, Wales, Scotland, anywhere else in England would make it an instant failure)
Plus, it contains 2 of the most exciting players the NFL has to offer, Reggie Bush and Devin Hester. Couple that with a high power offense and a hard hitting defense, which is what English people like to see, hard hitting football. Then you have a winning combo.
When I first saw the title of this thread, my first thoughts were that if the Saints must play a game overseas next season, I would prefer it be against the Bears.

As for those so adamantly against the Saints playing overseas, look at the bigger picture. The UK is ripe with new NFL fans, if the Saints can get in early and put on a good showing (better than Giants vs Dolphins last season), those new fans will become Saints fans and when they travel to the US for future NFL games, they would be traveling to NOLA.

Now I do not want NOLA to lose a home game, because that is immediate revenue the city needs to recover, but I can definitely see the benefit long-term of the Saints playing an overseas game.

Saints @ Bears in London. Would ya'll be heartbroken for the Bears fans to lose a home game?
 
Given the 4 teams listed, for the Saints to play in England the only match-up that makes sense is the Saints vs Chiefs...not a Div or Conf game. The appeal from an NFL marketing standpoint would be Reggie Bush...not sure who the Chiefs have that is a big draw.

Anybody know if the Seahawks or Bucs play the Chiefs next season? I would think the Bucs do since we're matched up with the AFC West in 08. A Bucs-Chiefs matchup would also have marketing appeal precisely because of the Glazer-MUFC link.

I do not want to see the Saints lose a home game for this, an away game - OK.
 
early but my target game to attend was the saints / chiefs, if it's played overseas looks like i will be watching all my nfl on tv this year.

just did a quick search and a plane ticket is about $1,000 a person; that is not including rental car, hotel, game tickets, food, etc. that is buying a ticket 8 months out at that price, can't imagine the price of a ticket when the schedule actually comes out. like it for the nfl as a business but for the average fan i do not see the plus side of it. people in england (for example) buying a bush jersey does nothing for me and I don't think it helps keep saints in N.O.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, the one game that makes the most sense to hold overseas is the Superbowl. Few to none of the teams' fans make it to the game, it's away for both teams, there's extra time for both teams to acclimate.

It'll not happen but in terms of what makes sense, that makes sense to me in terms of logistics and fairness and exposure.

I thought about the superbowl as well. And actually I wouldn't be surprised if it happened one year. But it would be a one year deal not an every year deal that the NFL is doing now. But after thinking about it more I don't really like that either. That takes a ton of money away from an NFL city.....and it takes the biggest game of the year away from most NFL fans. I say just put some preseason games overseas. I'd be happy not to have to pay for one of the preseason games. And i'm sure people over there would appreciate having some of those games.
 
if it's one of our away game, great. if the NFL tries to take away a home game they better offer us some MAJOR compensation (like a donation to a fund dedicated to keeping the saints in new orleans long term, AND an extra second round draft pick)
 
To be honest, the one game that makes the most sense to hold overseas is the Superbowl. Few to none of the teams' fans make it to the game, it's away for both teams, there's extra time for both teams to acclimate.

That would be horrible. Its an American sport and that is one of the greatest American events that a lot of the world tunes in to see. Having it overseas would be a horrible idea. Not to mention, basically eliminate any chance of the not so weathly diehard fan going to the game.

Preseason games are the only thing that would make sense to me.
 
But after thinking about it more I don't really like that either. That takes a ton of money away from an NFL city.....and it takes the biggest game of the year away from most NFL fans. I say just put some preseason games overseas.

That was my reaction to the idea of the Super Bowl being played abroad and why I don't think it will happen -- owners would sooner lobby to have the game played in their stadium so their city can reap the exposure and financial gains. I can't see the support among their ranks to move the Super Bowl overseas. (With one caveat, if the owners can be convinced of any long-term financial gains league-wide by playing the SB overseas, perhaps that offers some sway. But given the competitive lobbying to land the SB in an NFL city, I'm not sure the short-term thinking will very easily give way to the long-term when it comes time to vote.)

As for regular season games, I'm not a big fan of teams having to play abroad, but I do agree somewhat with Zardnok and wonder if that list of teams reflects a desire to get some clubs more exposure on a bigger stage? Could be nothing more than a random selection of teams, but they all stand out in that there isn't a Cowboys, Patriots, Packers, etc on the list -- as pointed out.

Whatever happens, the Saints should be the last team in the league to lose a home game. Hopefully the league recognizes that the city of New Orleans needs every NFL weekend it can get. I don't know what the financial impact is for one regular season game to the city, but I have to think it's significant enough that it's not something they should be asked to give up. And after the on-the-road season of 2005, I'd think it a more equitable approach by the league to look to other teams first to give up a home game.
 
Pre-season games. :lol:

Not going to happen, we've had the taste for the real thing, there's no going back.
 
Given the 4 teams listed, for the Saints to play in England the only match-up that makes sense is the Saints vs Chiefs...not a Div or Conf game. The appeal from an NFL marketing standpoint would be Reggie Bush...not sure who the Chiefs have that is a big draw.

Anybody know if the Seahawks or Bucs play the Chiefs next season? I would think the Bucs do since we're matched up with the AFC West in 08. A Bucs-Chiefs matchup would also have marketing appeal precisely because of the Glazer-MUFC link.

I do not want to see the Saints lose a home game for this, an away game - OK.

I also see the Glazer Man.Utd link sneaking this London game for the Buccaneers. It would make very smart business sense especially should United win in England this year. They can use United to help sell the Buccaneers.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom