PDA

View Full Version : Vikings going International?



boognish
05-30-2006, 04:19 PM
Say it ain't so!! That would bite for us to lose a homegame. Why would they single out the Vikes in this article? You would think teams such as the Texans, Titans, Saints, Jags and Peckers would be first on this list, with their crappy seasons and all. :mad:

NFL Going International?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Viking Update Staff
VikingUpdate.com May 29, 2006

Last year the NFL found success by taking two of its most anemic franchises -- the Cardinals and 49ers -- and selling out a regular-season game between them in Mexico City. If some in the power elite of the league have their way, the globalization of the NFL could include regular-season games in Canada -- with the Vikings being one of the teams considered to forfeit a home game in the process.

The home fans of the Vikings could find themselves missing out on one home game as early as 2008 if a recently-proposed plan by the NFL goes through. Starting in 2008, the league is looking at the possibility of playing two regular-season games outside of the continental U.S. The league experimented with the plan this season with a game between the Cardinals and 49ers played in Mexico City.

One of the places being looked to as a possibility is Canada. While it would likely be easier to send someone like Buffalo or Detroit across the border to play a "home game” in Toronto or Montreal, another distinct possibility is placing a game in Winnipeg, which has long supported the CFL. If that is the case, the Vikings are the closest NFL franchise to Winnipeg and would be a logical choice.

With heightened concerns over potential terrorist acts by sending U.S. teams abroad, it’s unlikely that we’ll see teams going to Germany, where Sunday’s announcement was made and the country that hosts five of the six NFL Europe franchises. But, if push comes to shove, the Vikings could end up as one of the victims of the “globalization” of the National Football League.

Prophet
05-30-2006, 04:21 PM
Maybe the Whizzinator and Weed Man could give them some advice on how to win over the fans in Canada.

whackthepack
05-30-2006, 04:30 PM
I do not care if they want to play a preseason game in Europe, Canada or Mexico, but screw playing a regular season game in another country!

Europe has there own league, so does Canada and f*ck Mexico and it's President (Fox)!

Top_Speed
05-30-2006, 05:46 PM
It's geographical.
Look at the Mexico game.. they took 1 team that is a stones throw away from Mexico and another team that has (had in the past) a large fan base.

So a Canadian game? Minny would be attractable to the NFL/Canadian market along with maybe Buffalo, GB, Detroit

boognish
05-30-2006, 05:55 PM
"Top_Speed" wrote:

It's geographical.
Look at the Mexico game.. they took 1 team that is a stones throw away from Mexico and another team that has (had in the past) a large fan base.

So a Canadian game? Minny would be attractable to the NFL/Canadian market along with maybe Buffalo, GB, Detroit

I understand the rationale, but it's a significant disadvantage to the team to lose one home game during the regular season; it's also an affront to Vikings fans, who sell out every game played in MN. Half the stadium has historically been empty during AZ games, so I can understand having them play in Mexico...who's going to miss them?

If the League wants to implement this stupid azz plan, then they had better set up a rotating schedule that ensures every NFL franchise will have their turn playing in a different country, not just teams who happen to be closest to the border.

crazyB
05-30-2006, 06:59 PM
true make them all play, what i don't get is why a team should give up a home game why not put two team's who would be away anyway?
at least that way no one team would have an advantage that sound's better to me.

bigdaddy72_1
05-30-2006, 06:59 PM
"whackthepack" wrote:

I do not care if they want to play a preseason game in Europe, Canada or Mexico, but screw playing a regular season game in another country!

I wholeheartedly agree. Having to forfeit a home game is a serious disadvantage for any team, not to mention that the visiting team will probably not like it either, considering that the trip will be longer and even more unfamiliar than neccessary.

I highly doubt that the owners will actually let this happen during the regular season. I would bet that this idea gets shot down next offseason.

cogitans
05-30-2006, 09:20 PM
It would really be bad if they were to move a regular season game to Europe, if it would hurt the season for the Vikes.

Still if it should be so, I'll be really glad that I acctually might be able to afford going to a game. I'm sure you understand that I would embrace that possibility.

Vikes_King
05-31-2006, 01:27 AM
no thnx =(

Ultrapurple
05-31-2006, 01:42 AM
I spent my last two years in USAF stationed in Minot, ND. The mileage to the Cities and Winnepeg are pretty close from there. There are a TON of Vikes fans in NoDak that would probaly make the trip. But I do not think it would be fair to make it a regular season game. The cost of a gallon of gas is going to really have an impact on how many out of state fans that will be willing to make the trip. They really need to study this proposal.

Ultrapurple

singersp
05-31-2006, 02:08 AM
"boognish" wrote:

Say it ain't so!! That would bite for us to lose a homegame. Why would they single out the Vikes in this article? You would think teams such as the Texans, Titans, Saints, Jags and Peckers would be first on this list, with their crappy seasons and all. :mad:


Why would they single out the Vikes in this article?

Because it's from Vikings update for God's sake.

What I don't understand is, why can't it be two teams away games that they do internationally?

singersp
05-31-2006, 02:14 AM
Boognish! Please read;

If that article requires a membership to read it & it's not available to the public, you better delete it now & just give us the gist of the article.

Webby has already been informed by VU that we are violating their copywrites by posting articles exclusive to members.

VikesfaninWI has to go thru all the ones he posted & delete them all.

PDQ!

If it's an article available to the public, I'd still axe the story & just supply the link.

boognish
05-31-2006, 02:21 AM
"singersp" wrote:

Boognish! Please read;

If that article requires a membership to read it & it's not available to the public, you better delete it now & just give us the gist of the article.

Webby has already been informed by VU that we are violating their copywrites.

VikesfaninWI has to go thru all the ones he posted & delete them all.

PDQ!

If it's an article available to the public, I'd still axe the story & just supply the link.

Well, it's not a subscriber feature. I actually copied it from the message board at the Pioneer press. I can't imagine that a copyright would be violated for copying non-subscriber articles, but maybe Webby can fill us in better. If it is violating copyright law, then we'll have to stop copying from all sites; that would suck.

morepepper
05-31-2006, 02:34 AM
God i hope so i live in winnipeg and that would be unbelieveable to go to a vikes game in my hometown.

snowinapril
05-31-2006, 02:45 AM
If this is true, it is truely our owner and his wish to be SUPER RICH!

Scarey!!

It is not fair to give up a home game.

They put the Niners and the Cards across the border, neither of them were going anywhere anyways. A loss of a home game didn't hurt either team.

If they set us up with a slouch of a team, maybe we could go to Canada and play.

Maybe the last preseason game where it is fairly competative but please not a regular season game.

Wiggles67
05-31-2006, 03:04 AM
"singersp" wrote:

"boognish" wrote:

Say it ain't so!! That would bite for us to lose a homegame. Why would they single out the Vikes in this article? You would think teams such as the Texans, Titans, Saints, Jags and Peckers would be first on this list, with their crappy seasons and all. :mad:


Why would they single out the Vikes in this article?

Because it's from Vikings update for God's sake.

What I don't understand is, why can't it be two teams away games that they do internationally?Eactly my thoughts that is completely unfair to whoever the"home team" is supposed to be. Not only are they playing on foreign turf and defeating the whole idea of the home field advantage but they are cheating the fans of the home team.

scottishvike
05-31-2006, 10:51 PM
On a purely selfish level I would love it if a Vikes game came to europe, specifically the U.K, as I would be able to see the team play live. At the same time I could not argue with any local fans who would be p'd off at losing a regular season game not to mention home field advantage.

There was a lot of talk at the tail end of last year about an NFL game coming to Wembley stadium this coming season, however building delays put an end to that idea. What was mooted at the time however was 1 game would be played outside the U.S every season, but because the teams would be on rotation it would only mean losing 1 home game every 32 years.

IMO if the owners believe they can increase awareness of the NFL worldwide therefore making more money it is something that will happen at some point.

thetrenches68OL
05-31-2006, 10:57 PM
F that

Benet
06-01-2006, 08:23 PM
"boognish" wrote:

Say it ain't so!! That would bite for us to lose a homegame. Why would they single out the Vikes in this article? You would think teams such as the Texans, Titans, Saints, Jags and Peckers would be first on this list, with their crappy seasons and all. :mad:

Texans: No because they have the brand-spanking-new Reliant Stadium.

Titans: No because they have the brand-spanking-new Coliseum.

Saints: No because the league is committed to putting the Saints back in the Superdome and/or moving them to LA, and the whole fiasco about the Giants at Saints at Giants game last year has left a bad taste in the mouths of a LOT of people.

Jags: The ALLTELL Stadium is only a decade old, and the NFL wouldn't want to force teams out of new stadiums for a game because it would set a bad precedent with regards to stadium-battles in the future. Even if, as is well-documented, they never even get close to selling it out.

Packers: Lambeau's considered a cut-above every other NFL stadium, it's got an aura about it that the NFL loves and every commentator talks about. To take a game out of there would be sacriligious to a LOT of fans.

stjmnsota
06-02-2006, 12:57 AM
Sounds like the season will have to be extended by a game for all teams with one "home game" played internationally. Or at least rotating teams playing outside US borders.

boognish
06-02-2006, 01:26 AM
"Benet" wrote:

"boognish" wrote:

Say it ain't so!! That would bite for us to lose a homegame. Why would they single out the Vikes in this article? You would think teams such as the Texans, Titans, Saints, Jags and Peckers would be first on this list, with their crappy seasons and all. :mad:

Texans: No because they have the brand-spanking-new Reliant Stadium.

Titans: No because they have the brand-spanking-new Coliseum.

Saints: No because the league is committed to putting the Saints back in the Superdome and/or moving them to LA, and the whole fiasco about the Giants at Saints at Giants game last year has left a bad taste in the mouths of a LOT of people.

Jags: The ALLTELL Stadium is only a decade old, and the NFL wouldn't want to force teams out of new stadiums for a game because it would set a bad precedent with regards to stadium-battles in the future. Even if, as is well-documented, they never even get close to selling it out.

Packers: Lambeau's considered a cut-above every other NFL stadium, it's got an aura about it that the NFL loves and every commentator talks about. To take a game out of there would be sacriligious to a LOT of fans.

Quit being so damned logical...are you a brit, or something :wink: . I just couldn't pass up a chance to take a shot at the Peckers.

Perch56
06-02-2006, 01:30 AM
why a home game, why cant it be an away game

collegeguyjeff
06-02-2006, 06:40 AM
the money made for our home games belongs to minnesota not some other country. this isn't right that they want to choose whatever team they want to move them where they want and further hurt our teams income. whats next are they gonna have canada and mexico teams in the nfl just cause the league is greedy.

ancoin
06-02-2006, 01:13 PM
"whackthepack" wrote:

I do not care if they want to play a preseason game in Europe, Canada or Mexico, but screw playing a regular season game in another country!

Europe has there own league, so does Canada and f*ck Mexico and it's President (Fox)! You can not call NFLE for a league it is practice. I think it is great and really good thing for NFL. But it could count for a away game.