The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community

The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/index.php)
-   Orange Mane Central Discussion (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   10 games in London? (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=108447)

elsid13 11-04-2012 07:28 AM

10 games in London?
 
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 07:32 AM

This Commish and these owners just can't keep themselves from ****ing up a good thing.

11-04-2012 07:33 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 07:33 AM

I think if they successfully fill it for 10 games in 2013 that the Jaguars will be there starting 2014

11-04-2012 07:36 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 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrangeSe7en (Post 3715774)
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 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrangeSe7en (Post 3715777)
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 08:19 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 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever (Post 3715793)
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 08:22 AM

stuff a london team ...my team IS, WAS AND ALWAYS WILL be Broncos til the day I day.

Miss I. 11-04-2012 08:26 AM

here's a couple articles, one specific to OP

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/oth...=feeds-newsxml

and one is about the issues with having games over here..
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/a...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.

11-04-2012 09:05 AM

lolengland
lollondon
lolrogergoodellllllll

RhymesayersDU 11-04-2012 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miss I. (Post 3715800)
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 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elsid13 (Post 3715778)
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.

11-04-2012 10:05 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 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baja (Post 3715844)
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 10:32 AM

NOOOOOOOOO!!!

Kaylore 11-04-2012 10:36 AM

Why aren't we pushing more for Canada and Mexico? What is it about the UK that is so attractive?

11-04-2012 10:38 AM

**** this ****. That is all.

baja 11-04-2012 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaylore (Post 3715885)
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

11-04-2012 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miss I. (Post 3715800)
here's a couple articles, one specific to OP

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/oth...=feeds-newsxml

and one is about the issues with having games over here..
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/a...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.

11-04-2012 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco X (Post 3715787)
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 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baja (Post 3715892)
Gateway to Europe and a world football league

By that logic we should start a league in China.

broncoblue 11-04-2012 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaylore (Post 3715885)
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.n...17000526_n.jpg

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

11-04-2012 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broncoblue (Post 3715906)

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.