PDA

View Full Version : 10 games in London?


elsid13
11-04-2012, 06:28 AM
Came across this little nugget this morning on Fox Soccer show.

QPR (Queen Park Rangers) are attempt to move into the new Olympics Stadium in London, but they have hit a major problem. The NFL has made a pitch to rent the stadium for 10 games starting next season. This is because of the 80,000 folks that went to the NE/St. Louis game this year. Right now the Staduim ownership is leaning to NFL proposal because it leave the park open for other events during the year

What do you think? Is the first step of moving a team to London? Or international expansion?

spdirty
11-04-2012, 06:32 AM
This Commish and these owners just can't keep themselves from ****ing up a good thing.

OrangeSe7en
11-04-2012, 06:33 AM
10 games a season or ten games over several seasons? It seems like the latter because of their reference to having the stadium open the rest of the time.

TheReverend
11-04-2012, 06:33 AM
I think if they successfully fill it for 10 games in 2013 that the Jaguars will be there starting 2014

OrangeSe7en
11-04-2012, 06:36 AM
A team in London would have a big advantage. There is a HUGE difference between the jetlag going to Europe vs going from Europe to the States. But on the other hand, it would be kind of good fro the east coast teams suffer from this disadvantage when going there, since teams in the west have had to deal with this disadvantage when going to the east coast for years.

elsid13
11-04-2012, 06:38 AM
10 games a season or ten games over several seasons? It seems like the latter because of their reference to having the stadium open the rest of the time.

10 games a season, not several seasons. An EPL team play up to 3 games a week, when you include the international games, and their season is about 8 months. With NFL games you only have 10 weekends to worry about during 4 month window.

Bronco X
11-04-2012, 07:10 AM
A team in London would have a big advantage. There is a HUGE difference between the jetlag going to Europe vs going from Europe to the States. But on the other hand, it would be kind of good fro the east coast teams suffer from this disadvantage when going there, since teams in the west have had to deal with this disadvantage when going to the east coast for years.

But the London team would have to travel across the ocean a whole lot more often. They'd have to accommodate somehow with the scheduling... the only thing I can think of that would make sense would be scheduling four game blocks for the team... two four game stateside road trips and two four game home stands.

A Super Bowl in London might be cool. The game would have to start a lot earlier stateside though.

BroncoMan4ever
11-04-2012, 07:19 AM
I really hate the London idea. If we have to see games outside the USA I would much rather see Canada and Mexico.

Mile High 81
11-04-2012, 07:21 AM
I really hate the London idea. If we have to see games outside the USA I would much rather see Canada and Mexico.

im from Europe and I hate the idea too.

1 or 2 Game is cool, but sending a franchse over here would suck.

broncoblue
11-04-2012, 07:22 AM
stuff a london team ...my team IS, WAS AND ALWAYS WILL be Broncos til the day I day.

Miss I.
11-04-2012, 07:26 AM
here's a couple articles, one specific to OP

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2226156/West-Ham-share-Olympic-Stadium-NFL-Americans.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

and one is about the issues with having games over here..
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/american-football-nfl-franchise-london-really-work-110537167.html

I am ambivalent about it to be honest. I think 2 games a year is reasonable, not not sure about the 10 games. But if they are serious about permanently having a team, well they have to start somewhere I suppose and London is a huge city. It feasibly could support a team more than some places in the US. Best bet would be the Jags I guess since they have **** attendance now. If they did it, they might have to take a look about how the conferences and teams are set up now and put them in an eastern conference or something.

lolcopter
11-04-2012, 08:05 AM
lolengland
lollondon
lolrogergoodellllllll

RhymesayersDU
11-04-2012, 08:36 AM
I am ambivalent about it to be honest. I think 2 games a year is reasonable, not not sure about the 10 games. But if they are serious about permanently having a team, well they have to start somewhere I suppose and London is a huge city. It feasibly could support a team more than some places in the US. Best bet would be the Jags I guess since they have **** attendance now. If they did it, they might have to take a look about how the conferences and teams are set up now and put them in an eastern conference or something.

I agree with you I think. I've never had a problem with the 1 London game at all. In fact, the NFL should always be trying to grow the sport. With that said, 10 games in one year could be tough, trying to work out all the byes, etc. And if they legitimately want a team out there, I agree, they have to put them in the AFC East from a logistics standpoint, and I think that would require re-alignment. Maybe the easy answer is move Jacksonville to the AFC East, move them to London, and then move Miami to the AFC South? I think for division games you have to try and limit the travel as much as possible, and facing NYJ, BUF, and NE would solve that, although still clearly not ideal.

I'm definitely more skeptical about having a team over there. It comes up in the NBA too. I just don't know if the travel involved on a week to week basis can really work.

baja
11-04-2012, 08:43 AM
10 games a season, not several seasons. An EPL team play up to 3 games a week, when you include the international games, and their season is about 8 months. With NFL games you only have 10 weekends to worry about during 4 month window.

We should play the London games on Tuesday night. That would allow the teams to travel on Sunday have a day to acclimate and as a bonus have a Tuesday night game.

spiralism
11-04-2012, 09:05 AM
Couldn't see QPR putting more than 40k in that ground tbh and they play in Hammersmith, the opposite end of London. The City council is just trying to keep a team from moving in imo, they already turned down Spurs and West Ham and both make far more sense than QPR. I'm sure Goodell proposed it but is it really legit or an enquiry?

Irish Stout
11-04-2012, 09:08 AM
We should play the London games on Tuesday night. That would allow the teams to travel on Sunday have a day to acclimate and as a bonus have a Tuesday night game.

Tuesday night games? That doesn't quite make sense considering the time differential for American viewers to be able to watch it. They'd be kicking off at 10pm in London for a 4pm slot in the US on Central time.

Tombstone RJ
11-04-2012, 09:32 AM
NOOOOOOOOO!!!

Kaylore
11-04-2012, 09:36 AM
Why aren't we pushing more for Canada and Mexico? What is it about the UK that is so attractive?

Agamemnon
11-04-2012, 09:38 AM
**** this ****. That is all.

baja
11-04-2012, 09:40 AM
Why aren't we pushing more for Canada and Mexico? What is it about the UK that is so attractive?

Gateway to Europe and a world football league

OrangeSe7en
11-04-2012, 09:41 AM
here's a couple articles, one specific to OP

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2226156/West-Ham-share-Olympic-Stadium-NFL-Americans.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

and one is about the issues with having games over here..
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/american-football-nfl-franchise-london-really-work-110537167.html

I am ambivalent about it to be honest. I think 2 games a year is reasonable, not not sure about the 10 games. But if they are serious about permanently having a team, well they have to start somewhere I suppose and London is a huge city. It feasibly could support a team more than some places in the US. Best bet would be the Jags I guess since they have **** attendance now. If they did it, they might have to take a look about how the conferences and teams are set up now and put them in an eastern conference or something.

It's not reasonable. The reason it's not reasonable is because American based teams are losing home games. Too much is spent on stadiums with public funds under the justification that it benefits a lot of people.

Having a team there would remove that issue.

OrangeSe7en
11-04-2012, 09:46 AM
But the London team would have to travel across the ocean a whole lot more often. They'd have to accommodate somehow with the scheduling... the only thing I can think of that would make sense would be scheduling four game blocks for the team... two four game stateside road trips and two four game home stands.

A Super Bowl in London might be cool. The game would have to start a lot earlier stateside though.

Once again, the jetlag going west isn't nearly as bad as it is going east. So, it wouldnt be as much of an issue for a London team going west as it would be for other teams going east.

Kaylore
11-04-2012, 09:51 AM
Gateway to Europe and a world football league

By that logic we should start a league in China.

broncoblue
11-04-2012, 09:51 AM
Why aren't we pushing more for Canada and Mexico? What is it about the UK that is so attractive?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/253433_10151027851470995_317000526_n.jpg

ME !!!!!!:wave::welcome:

OrangeSe7en
11-04-2012, 09:59 AM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/253433_10151027851470995_317000526_n.jpg

ME !!!!!!:wave::welcome:

OK, I get the get up but what's with the Teddy Bear?

baja
11-04-2012, 10:00 AM
He's a Bears fan? Yuk Yuk

broncocalijohn
11-04-2012, 10:18 AM
10 games a season, not several seasons. An EPL team play up to 3 games a week, when you include the international games, and their season is about 8 months. With NFL games you only have 10 weekends to worry about during 4 month window.

If it is one team, let me know what NFL football franchise gets 10 home games in a approximately 13 week window. I don't think you have a team there unless there is two franchises in the area.

Bronco Yoda
11-04-2012, 10:30 AM
.

Blighty
11-04-2012, 11:02 AM
Having one game at Wembley a year has worked out quite well, but the novelty value will quickly wear off if one team has all their home games in London for a season. There is no way that the fans who turned up for the sole NFL game this season will put aside their respective allegiance and go to watch a London franchise team instead.

If there was a team from London, then could it not be possible to play a number of home games in a row, before embarking on a mini tour of the states? Would mean they wouldn't have to travel back and forth across the Atlantic every other week.


Also as has already been said, absolutely no chance that QPR will move to the Olympic stadium. More chance of them ground sharing with Chelsea.

eddie mac
11-04-2012, 02:01 PM
Couldn't see QPR putting more than 40k in that ground tbh and they play in Hammersmith, the opposite end of London. The City council is just trying to keep a team from moving in imo, they already turned down Spurs and West Ham and both make far more sense than QPR. I'm sure Goodell proposed it but is it really legit or an enquiry?

It's not QPR anyway, it's West Ham and they'll get 50k once they lower the ticket prices.

The only reason why West Ham dont already have the stadium is the refusal to fully fund a 200m refit for retractable seating which is needed with that damn running track.

eddie mac
11-04-2012, 02:03 PM
The Jaguars will be a London based franchise within 5-6 years, there's a reason why they agreed to an extended one game per season deal.

Miss I.
11-04-2012, 02:09 PM
The Jaguars will be a London based franchise within 5-6 years, there's a reason why they agreed to an extended one game per season deal.

Well it makes sense...the car is English too and its also in constant need of repair/rebuilding. ;D

bowtown
11-04-2012, 02:11 PM
I think if they successfully fill it for 10 games in 2013 that the Jaguars will be there starting 2014

I fully expect this to happen.

broncobum6162
11-04-2012, 05:30 PM
This Commish and these owners just can't keep themselves from ****ing up a good thing.

Adolf Goodell,,,, what he wants he gets.... He's already pussified the NFL now he's gonna stretch it....Pun intended...

ZONA
11-04-2012, 05:34 PM
These NFL guys suck ass. **** any London team or Mexican team or anywhere else. This is OUR ****in football and any team not in the USA will not be accepted. Just watch it bomb. A single game in London every year, yeah I don't like that at all but it's acceptable. Having more then 1 game there a year, that's going to bomb also. Just watch. Some of you guys are right. They're trying their best to **** up a good thing. ****in idiots.

RhymesayersDU
11-04-2012, 05:39 PM
That is so shortsighted it's ridiculous.

BUT HEY, 'MERICA. THESE COLORS DON'T RUN. HAR HAR HAR.

Chris
11-04-2012, 05:44 PM
I worry about the effect on the sport but I would love a bigger international following and a broader talent pool.

That One Guy
11-04-2012, 05:52 PM
The Jaguars will be a London based franchise within 5-6 years, there's a reason why they agreed to an extended one game per season deal.

Remember, St Louis was going to be the London team until the city shut them down. I think Jax jumped at the opportunity to limit home games but I don't think this is a conspiracy or anything.

That One Guy
11-04-2012, 05:54 PM
Why aren't we pushing more for Canada and Mexico? What is it about the UK that is so attractive?

Well, Mexico is Mexico (and baja lives there).

Canada, I believe I read, get's really pissy when the NFL tries to intrude on CFL territory. I believe I read something about that with the whole Toronto situation.

Pick Six
11-04-2012, 05:55 PM
OK, I get the get up but what's with the Teddy Bear?

Have you seen the movie "Ted"? That teddy bear is lewd, crude and hilarious. I THINK that's the point...

That One Guy
11-04-2012, 05:57 PM
I worry about the effect on the sport but I would love a bigger international following and a broader talent pool.

Why do you care about a bigger international following? What is the benefit there that overrides the scheduling issues and the fact that American cities are losing out on these large revenue making events?

RedskinBronco
11-04-2012, 05:57 PM
Jags to London.
Chargers to LA
Chefs contracted

extralife
11-04-2012, 06:13 PM
Why aren't we pushing more for Canada and Mexico? What is it about the UK that is so attractive?

$$$$$

oh, and also $$$$$$

uk bronco
11-05-2012, 09:01 AM
I was at a coaching clinic a few months ago and Jim Criner former Scottish Claymores and Boise State HC and he recently worked for the queefs, said that the expansion plan for Europe was to put a team in london and one in france. that way when a team came over it would play both teams then fly back after the second game (and a probable bye week). Rumours over here kicking about that the Olympic Stadium may get used as no soccer team wants to use it as it the currently set up with the running track kills atmosphere.

Would be cool to have a London Franchise but i'd still support the Broncos over them but i think they'd be my second team

Tombstone RJ
11-05-2012, 09:05 AM
a team in France? Seriously? Do the French even care about American Football? This sounds like a huge mistake. I'd rather have 2 teams in the UK, put both in London and then have them share to friggen stadium.

what a monumental joke.

Chris
11-05-2012, 09:08 AM
Why do you care about a bigger international following? What is the benefit there that overrides the scheduling issues and the fact that American cities are losing out on these large revenue making events?

Because I'm from Hong Kong and it wasn't all that fun growing up as the only football / Broncos fan? Because I think the best league in the world could teach Europeans a thing or two about fairness and parity. Because the quality of football could very well increase with a wider talent pool.

DivineLegion
11-05-2012, 09:11 AM
I see London, I see France, I see Rogers underpants.

Tombstone RJ
11-05-2012, 09:16 AM
Because I'm from Hong Kong and it wasn't all that fun growing up as the only football / Broncos fan? Because I think the best league in the world could teach Europeans a thing or two about fairness and parity. Because the quality of football could very well increase with a wider talent pool.

If the NFL really wants to go international it needs to first broadcast the games for free all over the world in order to "grow" a fanbase. You can't plant a team in a city and expect an average citizen of that city to fork over a fist full of money to watch a live event they don't even understand.

Most of the world simply doesn't like American football because 1. they don't understand it and 2. it flows differently and has a lot of stops or breaks in the action. Now I think that IF overseas fans took the time to understand the game they might like it more. However I doubt they will spend any money on learning it because it's a friggen game. They will instead go and watch their favorite soccer team.

Tombstone RJ
11-05-2012, 09:20 AM
I can see the french soliciting a team not so much because they give two cents about the NFL or American football but more because they want to thumb their collective noses at the UK. In other words, they would begrudgingly accept an NFL team and tolerate the game so that they keep up with the Jones's.

Miss I.
11-05-2012, 09:57 AM
France is an odd choice? if they were going to pick a secondary location aside from London, Germany makes more sense as they have a fairly sizable NFL following there.

But yes, much like soccer has trouble in the US, American football struggles against rubgy and soccer for both the time it takes and the random rules. I actually don't think they'd have trouble understanding it since we have 9million replays and the announcers explain everything in painful detail. I actually think sports over here could benefit from the way we work the games with the big tv screens, and at least some replays.

I went to a rugby game the other day which was hella fun despite not really understanindg most of what they were doing. I do understand winning though. At any rate, they get into these crazy scrum-hduddle things that you can't see what they are doing and I thought you know if they shot this like the NFL there would be closeups you could see on the big screens. I can't help but think if the NFL was smart they might try helping by buying into and building up rugby teams and the stadiums so you can see stuff better. Soccer would be better to to have some scrreens up to see some of their stuff up close. I went to the Women's Gold Medal Soccer at Wembley and the set up was not nearly as good as when the NFL set it up for their games. However I will say that the crowd for that game was way more fun then the NFL games. Rugby game too. Love seeing the fans kitted up and drunk off their asses but friendly and fun.

cmhargrove
11-05-2012, 10:06 AM
By that logic we should start a league in China.

I heard Alabama could already beat any Chineese team. What's the sport in that?

Chris
11-05-2012, 10:28 AM
If the NFL really wants to go international it needs to first broadcast the games for free all over the world in order to "grow" a fanbase. You can't plant a team in a city and expect an average citizen of that city to fork over a fist full of money to watch a live event they don't even understand.

Most of the world simply doesn't like American football because 1. they don't understand it and 2. it flows differently and has a lot of stops or breaks in the action. Now I think that IF overseas fans took the time to understand the game they might like it more. However I doubt they will spend any money on learning it because it's a friggen game. They will instead go and watch their favorite soccer team.

Totally agree. It was a pain in the ass growing up (during the SB years I used to get my aunt to send me tapes of regular season games from CO that arrived two weeks late then I moved to GamePass radio before we actually got regular season day time games).

eddie mac
11-06-2012, 04:23 AM
France has no interest in the NFL, they're an NBA loving country.

Germany would take a franchise like a shot and would have as much fanbase interest as the UK.

WolfpackGuy
11-06-2012, 05:08 AM
Maybe the NFL can talk Carnival into building a stadium into one of their cruise ships.

In the meantime, why don't they just play some games on an aircraft carrier?

That One Guy
11-06-2012, 05:46 AM
Because I'm from Hong Kong and it wasn't all that fun growing up as the only football / Broncos fan? Because I think the best league in the world could teach Europeans a thing or two about fairness and parity. Because the quality of football could very well increase with a wider talent pool.

Well on a personal level that makes sense for you, I guess. For the average American, though, an international effort is a bad thing.

That One Guy
11-06-2012, 05:47 AM
I don't really like the games in London but the first time they put a team in a foreign country will be the end of football for me. Just so frustrated with the continual money grabs to the detriment of the sport. Sometimes I already feel like I'm hanging around for tradition as much as anything when I see some of the terrible rule adjustments they've made over the last few years.

elsid13
11-06-2012, 02:36 PM
If it is one team, let me know what NFL football franchise gets 10 home games in a approximately 13 week window. I don't think you have a team there unless there is two franchises in the area.

Didn't say it was one team, but 10 game would be rotation.

uk bronco
11-06-2012, 03:11 PM
there is apparently a 60000 seater stadium being built in Lyon by the owner of the soccer club who loves football

germany makes more sense to me but the sport is that big there they are apparently worried the NFL would kill its fanbase domestically