Im clearly talking about the extra cost and overall delay for the NFL pivot. The stadium overall clearly makes sense, does spending an extra 300M for the NFL? Not convinced for two games per season
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
But the extra cost is not to just make it NFL it’s to make it Multi purpose. There’s no way we could have hosted AJ fight without the Astro pitch. So the NFL is just part of the other events. There’s really very little that’s NFL specific apart from the dressing room and the large entrances onto the pitch. Although the basic bowl design is definitely influenced by Stadium levy Saw in the states that benefits the football atmosphere as well.
I mean you could host other events, but it’s bad for the pitch.
The retractible pitch means that Spurs don’t have to be burdened by ENIC’s other ambitions with the stadium, which is a good thing.
If the NFL leaves London and the many other local venues out-compete NWHL for other big events it ends up a bit of a white elephant, but it’s a sensible gamble for now.
That’s fair mate. I’m glad he took the time to visit Dallas, Atlanta etc rather than settling for an Emirates 2.
I don't think anyone can seriously argue the one thing ENIC have done well is the stadium. It's fucking immense.
My issue with them is the continual shit-show of the footballing operations side of the club. Lurching from one manager to another, one DOF to none and then back again. It's like they are basically winging it..
My issue with them is the continual shit-show of the footballing operations side of the club. Lurching from one manager to another, one DOF to none and then back again. It's like they are basically winging it..
No.
Love it though I do, American football is an extremely stupid game. Packed to the gills with national cultural signifiers, and at least in NCAA form dramatic and deeply historically weighted in the way English football is, but the product itself is garbage and unless Europe wants to make scrambled eggs of its youths brains it will never have the participation foothold it does here.
Remember the World League?
Agree but it was late and massively over budget. Who is funding that overspend? The fans, not ENIC
Europe don't seem to mind too much about a 60mph corner banging off their kids heads, so I dont think concussions from American football too much. I don't think it'll work, but its not because of safety concerns.
Last edited:
I remember Clive Allen was a kicker (think that's the name) for London Monarchs.
it was pretty bad.
You have to be a fucking tank to play it, we have Rugby for that. There is zero chance any state schools in the country will ever play it here, most of them ban Rugby as it's too much contact.
They tried a UK and European league here already and it never worked out.
Could it be 'relaunched'?
I have no interest in NFL but I know plenty that do, 60k at Spurs on Sunday was a huge success for the NFL, no?
Here's the thing... two games a year will bring 60k for the spectacle of it. But when there's 8-10 games a weekend for 18 weeks and the people really dont love American football, it just doesnt have staying power.
The club has massively underachieved under ENIC that is not in question that is why the supporters trust have every right to put forward a raft of questions that levy and the board will squirm as they bull shit their way through answering trying to find answers to fuck ups
I also imagine these games attract a fair number of tourist fans of those teams, right?
you can't build a lasting league on that. Plus NFL Europe was awful football. Its not like top players would go play there. It would be a developmental league.
Its been well documented that the NFL contract alone pretty much covered the extra expense of the dual field and additional locker rooms. In the scope of the project, the additional cost wasn't that great. It comes with the added benefit of allowing the field to be turned over rapidly for in-season events without worrying about damage to the playing surface. The additional revenue the stadium produces is used to service stadium debt - debt that the football club doesn't have to pay, then.
Never ceases to amaze me how much some fans fixate on the dual-purpose nature of the stadium as if it in any way negatively impacts the club. I know several people greatly enjoyed the Joshua fight at the stadium, didn't negatively impact the club whatsoever. And setting the stadium up with such capabilities hasn't taken a penny out of the football club.
Find a better complaint.
Its not just 2 games a year, the NFL plans to play, in essence, a full home schedule in London each season. Covid has set them back, but in 2019 they hosted 4 games. They simply do it with rotating teams, which is legally and functionally a much better way for them to handle it than a full-time London club. And every game is an immense sellout, and will likely carry on doing so.
The last pre-covid year the NFL hosted 4 London games, which required flying 8 NFL teams and their full equipment to London and arranging accommodations and practice/meeting facility for 8 teams. That's basically the same cost as a full season's away schedule.
Theres a lot of reasons I doubt the NFL ever has a full-time London team, but suffice it that cost isn't one. The NFL makes ridiculous gobs of money, and on merchandise alone a London team would pay for everyone's travel costs. You're talking about 1 team who's entire "local" market would basically be 65M people.
Last edited: