10 games in London? - The Orange Mane

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrangeSe7en

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrangeSe7en

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever

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/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.

lolcopter · 11-04-2012, 08:05 AM

lolengland
lollondon
lolrogergoodellllllll

RhymesayersDU · 11-04-2012, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miss I.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by elsid13

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by baja

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaylore

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miss I.

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.

OrangeSe7en · 11-04-2012, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco X

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by baja

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaylore

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

ME !!!!!!

OrangeSe7en · 11-04-2012, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broncoblue

ME !!!!!!

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

11-04-2012, 06:28 AM	#1
elsid13 Lost In Space Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: DC Posts: 19,081	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?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-04-2012, 06:32 AM	#2
spdirty Ring of Famer Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bailey Posts: 13,901 Adopt-a-Bronco: Koppen	This Commish and these owners just can't keep themselves from ****ing up a good thing.

11-04-2012, 06:33 AM	#3
OrangeSe7en Ring of Famer New to the Forum Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 2,666 Adopt-a-Bronco: None	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.

11-04-2012, 06:33 AM	#4
TheReverend www.PatrickTurley.org ^ buy this... twice Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 32,985 Adopt-a-Bronco: Mike Shanahan	I think if they successfully fill it for 10 games in 2013 that the Jaguars will be there starting 2014

11-04-2012, 06:36 AM	#5
OrangeSe7en Ring of Famer New to the Forum Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 2,666 Adopt-a-Bronco: None	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.

11-04-2012, 07:19 AM	#8
BroncoMan4ever Ring of Famer Here to chew bubblegum and kick ass Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 11,565 Adopt-a-Bronco: VIRGIL GREEN!!!	I really hate the London idea. If we have to see games outside the USA I would much rather see Canada and Mexico.

11-04-2012, 07:22 AM	#10
broncoblue english not british!! Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: nr blackburn ,england Posts: 3,739	stuff a london team ...my team IS, WAS AND ALWAYS WILL be Broncos til the day I day.

11-04-2012, 07:26 AM	#11
Miss I. Ring of Famer Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,025	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, 08:05 AM	#12
lolcopter Fame of Ringer Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 1,836 Adopt-a-Bronco: Chris Harris	lolengland lollondon lolrogergoodellllllll

11-04-2012, 09:05 AM	#15
spiralism Pro Bowler Need to get away from it all? Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Galway, Ireland Posts: 614 Adopt-a-Bronco: Brandon Stokely	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?

11-04-2012, 09:32 AM	#17
Tombstone RJ Ring of Famer Old School Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: In the Tetons! Posts: 19,283 Adopt-a-Bronco: WorrellWilliams	NOOOOOOOOO!!!

11-04-2012, 09:36 AM	#18
Kaylore 6-37, Raider fans. Yummy birds and snow! Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Ceti Alpha V Posts: 41,028 Adopt-a-Bronco: Wesley Duke	Why aren't we pushing more for Canada and Mexico? What is it about the UK that is so attractive?

11-04-2012, 09:38 AM	#19
Agamemnon Ring of Famer Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 10,429 Adopt-a-Bronco: None	** this **. That is all.