![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
But I didn't see any of them winning the FA Cup either.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
I suspect they're making a mistake there. People turning up for the novelty value is a bit different from sustained interest in the sport on a sufficient scale to be worth shipping teams back and forth for a full season.Mikey wrote:The fact of putting approx. 80,000 butts in Wembley every time there's been a regular season game hosted there is a big contributing factor to that decision.
Good lord, don't remind me. There's three hours of my life I'll never get back.IanKennedy wrote:We had our own league at one point. I even went to a game. It sort of died out when Channel 4 stopped showing the US matches. It was never big enough that it was televised.
You misunderstand me. Nobody's talking about taking the two annual games that are held over there and expanding that number to 16; rather, they're talking about either: a) adding a 33rd team to the league and basing it in London, or b) moving an existing team permanently to London. Obviously they won't sell out every game, at least until a time-intensive set of even small-scale inroads is made; but ticket sales are a small fraction of any NFL team's income. TV revenue and merchandising are surprisingly lucrative fields for the NFL; and even though those fields would be diminished in London compared to even a mid-market U.S. team, the fact of those sources having an amazingly high margin percentage means they'd still be viable sources of revenue.Captain Seafort wrote:I suspect they're making a mistake there. People turning up for the novelty value is a bit different from sustained interest in the sport on a sufficient scale to be worth shipping teams back and forth for a full season.Mikey wrote:The fact of putting approx. 80,000 butts in Wembley every time there's been a regular season game hosted there is a big contributing factor to that decision.