Rams to play Home Game in London next 3 years (1 Viewer)

[JaxBill]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/01/20/rams-may-regularly-play-home-games-in-london/

IainRWB says: Jan 20, 2012 8:25 AM

Rams Facebook says they are vs Pats this year and will play home games in London on 2013 and 2014.

 

[Shermanator]

How does that effect season ticket holders? I assume you pay for 7 games? Not 8?

 

[JaxBill]

FWIW, Jaguars new Shad Khan has said that he wanted to grow internationally and the Jags are scheduled to play at STL in 2013 in the rotation.

 

[JaxBill]

How does that effect season ticket holders? I assume you pay for 7 games? Not 8?

9 games, not 10.STH forced to buy pre-season games.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

why does london want to see the rams every year? Ugh

 

[Leroy Hoard]

How does that effect season ticket holders?

They better have a valid passport.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

Just a longer flight after they move to LA.

 

[thelimey]

Aren't the Rams able to move in 2015 if their stadium isn't upgraded? This could be them either testing the waters to see if a move to London is viable or trying to get leverage elsewhere. It's also worth remembering that Kroenke also owns Arsenal FC in London so he could be looking at some sort of commercial tie up there too.

 

[Osaurus]

One thing the Bucs did right this year: not playing in London again

 

[Stinkin Ref]

this seems really strange for some reason

 

[RBM]

Man I hope theg get like 500 people in Wembley by year two

 

[footballnerd]

this is how they promote the NFL overseas?

 

[butcher boy]

That's ridiculous to make an NFL team travel so far to play, and for three years in a row? What a sham.

There should never be an NFL team in England for that very reason.

 

[Sweet Love]

That's ridiculous to make an NFL team travel so far to play, and for three years in a row? What a sham.There should never be an NFL team in England for that very reason.

I am guessing the owner had some say in this, so I don't see how they are "making" the organization do anything. I really don't see why people get so upset at the idea of the NFL expanding into another country. If a city in the U.S. cannot support a team, they should not have one. If they can't get a viable stadium in a city seeking one, they shouldn't get a team. If the country that gets an NFL team, cannot support it, they will fold and move back (experiment over). You guys make it sound like you are the ones who have to travel each week...what do you care whether a guy making $1mm has to travel overseas every couple of weeks?

 

[renesauz]

That's ridiculous to make an NFL team travel so far to play, and for three years in a row? What a sham.

There should never be an NFL team in England for that very reason.

I am guessing the owner had some say in this, so I don't see how they are "making" the organization do anything. I really don't see why people get so upset at the idea of the NFL expanding into another country. If a city in the U.S. cannot support a team, they should not have one. If they can't get a viable stadium in a city seeking one, they shouldn't get a team. If the country that gets an NFL team, cannot support it, they will fold and move back (experiment over). You guys make it sound like you are the ones who have to travel each week...what do you care whether a guy making $1mm has to travel overseas every couple of weeks?

Nobody is...that's really not the issue. The issue comes from non-divisional opponents forced to make such a trip, or worse, from your teams top divisional rival playing the London based team at home (HUGE home field advantage) while your team has to travel to London (HUGE disadvantage). The team based in London wouldn't be the team with an artificial advantage/disadvantage...it's every other (non-divisional) team on their schedule that would be getting screwed (or getting a lucky break!)Mexico City would make more sense if the NFL is determined to expand "Internationally".

 

[butcher boy]

You guys make it sound like you are the ones who have to travel each week...what do you care whether a guy making $1mm has to travel overseas every couple of weeks?

I care because right now, it means a lost home game for a team. I care because it's already ridiculous that the NFL cant get west->east coast travel and game times correct, and now they want to bring London into the mix. Every time I hear a Brit talk about football they just call it a ####ty version of soccer or rugby, so why should I care if London gets a team?

 

[Banger]

I don't get it. Just like sending english soccer teams over here isn't going to change our viewership, sending the NFL over there isn't going to make a difference. Ya, some people will show up and it'll be a sideshow for a week but at the end of the day no one cares.

 

[cstu]

I don't get it. Just like sending english soccer teams over here isn't going to change our viewership, sending the NFL over there isn't going to make a difference. Ya, some people will show up and it'll be a sideshow for a week but at the end of the day no one cares.

How much did Pele coming to play here boost interest in soccer?I know people in the UK and Spain who are fans of the NFL. The more games played there, the more people will get interested and watch the games.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

That's ridiculous to make an NFL team travel so far to play, and for three years in a row? What a sham.

There should never be an NFL team in England for that very reason.

I am guessing the owner had some say in this, so I don't see how they are "making" the organization do anything. I really don't see why people get so upset at the idea of the NFL expanding into another country. If a city in the U.S. cannot support a team, they should not have one. If they can't get a viable stadium in a city seeking one, they shouldn't get a team. If the country that gets an NFL team, cannot support it, they will fold and move back (experiment over). You guys make it sound like you are the ones who have to travel each week...what do you care whether a guy making $1mm has to travel overseas every couple of weeks?

Nobody is...that's really not the issue. The issue comes from non-divisional opponents forced to make such a trip, or worse, from your teams top divisional rival playing the London based team at home (HUGE home field advantage) while your team has to travel to London (HUGE disadvantage). The team based in London wouldn't be the team with an artificial advantage/disadvantage...it's every other (non-divisional) team on their schedule that would be getting screwed (or getting a lucky break!)Mexico City would make more sense if the NFL is determined to expand "Internationally".

I'm guessing that Stan Kroenke wanted to see his team play in the UK. He is financially stacked and he owns Arsenal FC, Colorado Avalanche, Rams, Denver Nuggets, a lacrosse team and a MLS team, so this is most likely a gentle nudge to StL to get the stadium thing resolved. NFL will probably schedule both teams that will play in UK to play Thursday games the week beforehand.

 

[JaxBill]

I don't get it. Just like sending english soccer teams over here isn't going to change our viewership, sending the NFL over there isn't going to make a difference. Ya, some people will show up and it'll be a sideshow for a week but at the end of the day no one cares.

umm, the head of Fox Sports disagrees, to an extent

On Feb. 5, Super Bowl Sunday, Fox's main network will televise what it calls "the game before the game," Chelsea's match against Manchester United at London's Stamford Bridge starting at 11 a.m. EST.

"People have been saying since the beginning of time in the U.S. that soccer is the sport of tomorrow, yet tomorrow never comes," Hill said. "We're not saying that's ever going to take over. It's never doing to dominate, it's never going to replace college football or any sports, but it's going to grow over the next 10-20 years to an incredibly strong niche."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/01/20/epl-gets-1st-us-live-network-telecast-676509276/#ixzz1k2o1IAuo

 

[cstu]

That's ridiculous to make an NFL team travel so far to play, and for three years in a row? What a sham.

There should never be an NFL team in England for that very reason.

Is it also ridiculous to make teams travel all the way from CA to NY?

 

[ichris]

Waste of a "home" game...

 

[comfortably numb]

Never understood why teams or the NFL can't have a fleet of concordes for this simple reason.

NY to London would be 3:30

NY/CA trips would be half the time.

Is is THAT much more to operate?

Maybe the NFL could operate 2 jets to help the travel times, and say no flight should ever exceed 4 hours or something.

 

[cstu]

Never understood why teams or the NFL can't have a fleet of concordes for this simple reason.

NY to London would be 3:30

NY/CA trips would be half the time.



Is is THAT much more to operate?

Maybe the NFL could operate 2 jets to help the travel times, and say no flight should ever exceed 4 hours or something.

A lot considering they've been retired since 2003. Currently there are no supersonic aircraft in operation.

 

[comfortably numb]

Never understood why teams or the NFL can't have a fleet of concordes for this simple reason.

NY to London would be 3:30

NY/CA trips would be half the time.



Is is THAT much more to operate?

Maybe the NFL could operate 2 jets to help the travel times, and say no flight should ever exceed 4 hours or something.

A lot considering they've been retired since 2003. Currently there are no supersonic aircraft in operation.

Yea, meant before that, or bring out 2-5 out of retirement?

 

[cstu]

Never understood why teams or the NFL can't have a fleet of concordes for this simple reason.

NY to London would be 3:30

NY/CA trips would be half the time.



Is is THAT much more to operate?

Maybe the NFL could operate 2 jets to help the travel times, and say no flight should ever exceed 4 hours or something.

A lot considering they've been retired since 2003. Currently there are no supersonic aircraft in operation.

Yea, meant before that, or bring out 2-5 out of retirement?

Teams only have 8 road games so it's not cost-effective. They fly chartered flights, except technically for the Seahawks who fly one of Paul Allen's private jets.I do think there should be supersonic jets and they would help a lot with these overseas games.

 

[gpthatsme]

Never understood why teams or the NFL can't have a fleet of concordes for this simple reason.NY to London would be 3:30NY/CA trips would be half the time.Is is THAT much more to operate?Maybe the NFL could operate 2 jets to help the travel times, and say no flight should ever exceed 4 hours or something.

This is true. The whole "why make them travel that far" angle is over rated. I travel internationally all the time for work and its nothing. And these guys aren't flying coach on a Delta 747. They are making the trip from the east coast in less than 6 hours. And coaches use it for film study or mandatory sleep time. The issue is game times compared to what their bodies are used to. A noon game in London is a 6 am game to their unadjusted body.

 

[Bri]

That's ridiculous to make an NFL team travel so far to play, and for three years in a row? What a sham.

There should never be an NFL team in England for that very reason.

I am guessing the owner had some say in this, so I don't see how they are "making" the organization do anything. I really don't see why people get so upset at the idea of the NFL expanding into another country. If a city in the U.S. cannot support a team, they should not have one. If they can't get a viable stadium in a city seeking one, they shouldn't get a team. If the country that gets an NFL team, cannot support it, they will fold and move back (experiment over). You guys make it sound like you are the ones who have to travel each week...what do you care whether a guy making $1mm has to travel overseas every couple of weeks?

Nobody is...that's really not the issue. The issue comes from non-divisional opponents forced to make such a trip, or worse, from your teams top divisional rival playing the London based team at home (HUGE home field advantage) while your team has to travel to London (HUGE disadvantage). The team based in London wouldn't be the team with an artificial advantage/disadvantage...it's every other (non-divisional) team on their schedule that would be getting screwed (or getting a lucky break!)Mexico City would make more sense if the NFL is determined to expand "Internationally".

Mexico City went well, as I recall, the last time they went there. I'm not sure why the NFL doesn't travel to Germany(NFLE years ago) and to Australia(huge following by TV).

There's gotta be some logic. After X number of games in London...what's their goal? What will they have built up there that they can capitalize on?

If Mexico City is "international" then I suppose Toronto already is. Will London do a timeshare like the Bills?

 

[msommer]

Never understood why teams or the NFL can't have a fleet of concordes for this simple reason.

NY to London would be 3:30

NY/CA trips would be half the time.



Is is THAT much more to operate?

Maybe the NFL could operate 2 jets to help the travel times, and say no flight should ever exceed 4 hours or something.

A lot considering they've been retired since 2003. Currently there are no supersonic aircraft in operation.

Yea, meant before that, or bring out 2-5 out of retirement?

Teams only have 8 road games so it's not cost-effective. They fly chartered flights, except technically for the Seahawks who fly one of Paul Allen's private jets.I do think there should be supersonic jets and they would help a lot with these overseas games.

There are simply not enough people willing to shell out the dough any more. Don't forget that fuel prices are not what they were in 2003 - plus it cost a bundle to design, proof and produce a new aircraft, let alone an almost new type. Certainly not work that will begin in the current economic climate.

 

[cstu]

Never understood why teams or the NFL can't have a fleet of concordes for this simple reason.

NY to London would be 3:30

NY/CA trips would be half the time.

Is is THAT much more to operate?

Maybe the NFL could operate 2 jets to help the travel times, and say no flight should ever exceed 4 hours or something.

This is true. The whole "why make them travel that far" angle is over rated. I travel internationally all the time for work and its nothing. And these guys aren't flying coach on a Delta 747. They are making the trip from the east coast in less than 6 hours. And coaches use it for film study or mandatory sleep time. The issue is game times compared to what their bodies are used to. A noon game in London is a 6 am game to their unadjusted body.

Make it a night game and it's a little more normal for them.

 

[cstu]

That's ridiculous to make an NFL team travel so far to play, and for three years in a row? What a sham.

There should never be an NFL team in England for that very reason.

I am guessing the owner had some say in this, so I don't see how they are "making" the organization do anything. I really don't see why people get so upset at the idea of the NFL expanding into another country. If a city in the U.S. cannot support a team, they should not have one. If they can't get a viable stadium in a city seeking one, they shouldn't get a team. If the country that gets an NFL team, cannot support it, they will fold and move back (experiment over). You guys make it sound like you are the ones who have to travel each week...what do you care whether a guy making $1mm has to travel overseas every couple of weeks?

Nobody is...that's really not the issue. The issue comes from non-divisional opponents forced to make such a trip, or worse, from your teams top divisional rival playing the London based team at home (HUGE home field advantage) while your team has to travel to London (HUGE disadvantage). The team based in London wouldn't be the team with an artificial advantage/disadvantage...it's every other (non-divisional) team on their schedule that would be getting screwed (or getting a lucky break!)Mexico City would make more sense if the NFL is determined to expand "Internationally".

Mexico City went well, as I recall, the last time they went there. I'm not sure why the NFL doesn't travel to Germany(NFLE years ago) and to Australia(huge following by TV).

There's gotta be some logic. After X number of games in London...what's their goal? What will they have built up there that they can capitalize on?

If Mexico City is "international" then I suppose Toronto already is. Will London do a timeshare like the Bills?

Australia would be great since the game is popular there, but even for west coast teams that's a 14-15 hour flight. How about having the Pro Bowl there instead?

 

[Bri]

Never understood why teams or the NFL can't have a fleet of concordes for this simple reason.

NY to London would be 3:30

NY/CA trips would be half the time.



Is is THAT much more to operate?

Maybe the NFL could operate 2 jets to help the travel times, and say no flight should ever exceed 4 hours or something.

A lot considering they've been retired since 2003. Currently there are no supersonic aircraft in operation.

they were retired with massive travel (commuting) involved. They were too cool, there's no way they were all destroyed or anything. Wonder if anyone looked into this.I believe some planes have "retired" when the owners sold their teams while other times the new owner gets them. I have not kept up in anyway with this. At one time, it did fascinate me and I remember two NBA teams having a quarter court of sorts built within their plane. The planes were so cool to read about and I want to guess this was the early 90s.

I really can't imagine why owners would go away from having custom made planes(if they have). They have so much money invested in those travelers. Aside from obviously their health, they surely want to guarantee the players and coaches travel well AND get stuff done. Most, if not all, teams travel and prepare during the flight.

I wish I knew more about this stuff

 

[Bri]

That's ridiculous to make an NFL team travel so far to play, and for three years in a row? What a sham.

There should never be an NFL team in England for that very reason.

I am guessing the owner had some say in this, so I don't see how they are "making" the organization do anything. I really don't see why people get so upset at the idea of the NFL expanding into another country. If a city in the U.S. cannot support a team, they should not have one. If they can't get a viable stadium in a city seeking one, they shouldn't get a team. If the country that gets an NFL team, cannot support it, they will fold and move back (experiment over). You guys make it sound like you are the ones who have to travel each week...what do you care whether a guy making $1mm has to travel overseas every couple of weeks?

Nobody is...that's really not the issue. The issue comes from non-divisional opponents forced to make such a trip, or worse, from your teams top divisional rival playing the London based team at home (HUGE home field advantage) while your team has to travel to London (HUGE disadvantage). The team based in London wouldn't be the team with an artificial advantage/disadvantage...it's every other (non-divisional) team on their schedule that would be getting screwed (or getting a lucky break!)Mexico City would make more sense if the NFL is determined to expand "Internationally".

Mexico City went well, as I recall, the last time they went there. I'm not sure why the NFL doesn't travel to Germany(NFLE years ago) and to Australia(huge following by TV).

There's gotta be some logic. After X number of games in London...what's their goal? What will they have built up there that they can capitalize on?

If Mexico City is "international" then I suppose Toronto already is. Will London do a timeshare like the Bills?

Australia would be great since the game is popular there, but even for west coast teams that's a 14-15 hour flight. How about having the Pro Bowl there instead?

I'm geographically challenged. Don't they just go the other way? West instead of east?I remember when they were discussing changing the pro bowl, players and their families had become quite accustomed to the thought of Hawaii and it was part of their daily routine. Something people overlooked was Hawaii represented personal goals during their training, a family goal for a wife and kids that don't get to see their dad often etc. While it was an accomplishment it was also a well needed vacation to catch up with their families.

 

[thayman]

That's ridiculous to make an NFL team travel so far to play, and for three years in a row? What a sham.

There should never be an NFL team in England for that very reason.

I am guessing the owner had some say in this, so I don't see how they are "making" the organization do anything. I really don't see why people get so upset at the idea of the NFL expanding into another country. If a city in the U.S. cannot support a team, they should not have one. If they can't get a viable stadium in a city seeking one, they shouldn't get a team. If the country that gets an NFL team, cannot support it, they will fold and move back (experiment over). You guys make it sound like you are the ones who have to travel each week...what do you care whether a guy making $1mm has to travel overseas every couple of weeks?

Nobody is...that's really not the issue. The issue comes from non-divisional opponents forced to make such a trip, or worse, from your teams top divisional rival playing the London based team at home (HUGE home field advantage) while your team has to travel to London (HUGE disadvantage). The team based in London wouldn't be the team with an artificial advantage/disadvantage...it's every other (non-divisional) team on their schedule that would be getting screwed (or getting a lucky break!)Mexico City would make more sense if the NFL is determined to expand "Internationally".

Mexico City went well, as I recall, the last time they went there. I'm not sure why the NFL doesn't travel to Germany(NFLE years ago) and to Australia(huge following by TV).

There's gotta be some logic. After X number of games in London...what's their goal? What will they have built up there that they can capitalize on?

If Mexico City is "international" then I suppose Toronto already is. Will London do a timeshare like the Bills?

Australia would be great since the game is popular there, but even for west coast teams that's a 14-15 hour flight. How about having the Pro Bowl there instead?

I'm geographically challenged. Don't they just go the other way? West instead of east?I remember when they were discussing changing the pro bowl, players and their families had become quite accustomed to the thought of Hawaii and it was part of their daily routine. Something people overlooked was Hawaii represented personal goals during their training, a family goal for a wife and kids that don't get to see their dad often etc. While it was an accomplishment it was also a well needed vacation to catch up with their families.

A big reason the Pro Bowl moved is that the Hawaiian State Government is a bunch of idiots. They tried to play hard with the NFL and get them to pretty much pay for all of the renovations of Aloha Stadium (which is a complete #### hole). After the Pro Bowl wasn't here the state figured out just how much money we make off of the Pro Bowl, so they promptly caved to everything the NFL wanted (rennovations of Aloha Stadium and $4 million per year IIRC)

 

[gump]

One thing the Bucs did right this year: not playing in London again

No kidding. Tampa better get another SB soon for that last two trips.

 

[tonka]

I found this article has some good information (and also some questionable ideas) about how the NFL could overcome the logistical problems of putting a team in London. Game start times, travel, etc. I don't think it would be totally impossible to do it, but it would disrupt some stuff for sure.

Will We Ever See An NFL Team In Europe?

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I think it makes sense to have the same team go three years in a row. It allows fans over there to get to know a team, see them evolve, maybe build a little fan base because they'll be back the following year. I have no idea why they picked the Rams, but I see some benefits to it.