That is a 60 mile stretch of land... I guess it is OK for NYC to get LI and Northern Jersey, though:up:
The biggest problem with the CoI plan for a new LA team is the location. I guarantee none of the Westsiders bother to drive out across the 10/60 to go see a game in a part of LA County that they never set foot in, especially not when you factor in the increased traffic at a football stadium over, say, a Lakers game. I'd say it's too bad that the older plans failed (The Coliseum, Rose Bowl), but I'm not sure it is too bad. The only team really worth seeing in LA is the Kings. Their fans are incredibly passionate and knowledgeable. Dodger fans I suppose would be a distant second. The Lakers have priced a lot of their hardcore fans out of tickets, so you get the people who write tickets off as a business expense and take clients who just want to be seen there. Unfortunately, to succeed in LA, you need to count on those people to fund your team and stadium, and I just don't see them making the trip.
It only mentions NYC and not LI or Northern NJ but if those were included at least those areas are in the NYC metro area unlike Daytona and Melbourne w/ orlando and it's alot more than a 60 mile stretch. It's 55 from Orlando to Daytona, 72 from orlando to Melboure and 91 from melbourne to Daytona. Northern NJ is right across the river, Queens and Brooklyn are on the Island.
Again they do not mention LI as part of NYC but even if it was parts of NYC are on Long Island. Daytona and melbourne are an hour away from Orlando. You might as well add Tampa on the other side.
The Rams rejected an Edward Jones Dome renovation proposal. It just makes me wonder if this is the beginning of the process that will send the Rams back to Los Angeles. IF that happens it also may open the door for the Jaguars to move to St. Louis.
The guy who owns the Rams also owns a team in the English Premier League. I think the Rams in London is a real possibility. They'd move to the NFC East and the Cowboys would finally join the West where they belong. Washington, NY and London in the same division. For once the NFL would mirror reality. Add Hamburg into the mix and you've got the western empire in all it's glory encompassed in 4 teams.
Wouldn't a London team be a scheduling/traveling nightmare? I might be wrong but it just seems like way more hassle than the pros.
There won't be a team in London. Not unless they feel like throwing millions upon millions down the pan.
The travel issues could be addressed pretty easily by keeping the London team off Thursday nights. Yeah it's a long haul for a team to go from SF or SD to London or vice-versa. Best guess is that the NFL would just keep all the games involving the London teams off Thursday night except for the division games which would involve a long flight but not a nightmare. Teams that were going to play the London team and were not close enough for a reasonable flight would stage to London for their rare games there over a couple of days with meetings held at the staging location. Fly Thursday, meet Friday, fly Friday night, settle in Saturday, play Sunday. for most teams this would be a once every four or five years thing. The London team would buy property somewhere on the east coast of the USA and would setup a second stopover facility there. Nothing big or grand but just good enough to hold meetings and let players stretch out on the field for the Friday work. The London team would absorb most of the travel hits and their players would be additionally compensated for this by NFL rule. The scheduling issues are bigger, as anybody who has followed the EPL is aware. Games would be live in the middle of the night for west coast teams and London fans when the game is played on the west coast. They could work that out also though. If the NFL can make the Jets play in Denver 4 days after they've played their toughest divisional game of the year they can do anything. Think about it.
there is no way the league is going to fuck up the rivalries between the cowgirls and giants/redskins/eagles. no way no how. having a team in london would be a terrible idea and might put me over the edge to not watch the nfl anymore.
The original post in this thread is dated nearly four years ago, and how close, exactly, is LA, really, to getting a team? The problem here is that the state of California doesn't have the money to build a stadium for some yet unknown NFL team. Private financiers won't ante up unless a team agrees, in writing, to come to LA. No NFL team is willing to move unless there's an NFL-approved facility already built so that the team can pull a Colts, Oilers or Ravens and just suddenly pack the moving vans and head out of town. A lame-duck team in an angry city will find itself buried in ugly publicity and lawsuits. Finally, the NFL is very wary of inciting the wrath of powerful national politicians who might decide to raise the issue of federal antitrust law if a team were to move, especially if it were a lame-duck team stuck for a couple of years in its old town. IMO, unless/until something in this scenario changes, LA's only hope is to get an expansion franchise. I think that it's possible that Oakland or San Diego could move because that would be within the state and might not raise federal wrath, but I don't think state pols would be willing to pit LA against other parts of the state.
The problem with having a team in London is that there's no real potential support there - most of us in the UK already have our teams that we're pretty passionate about. We're not going to suddenly switch to the London Rams just because their local. And you wouldn't be able to play any US night games their unless you fancy a 1:30am start.
Well thought out and well said. I guess it's a much more reasonable and realistic threat that I had thought. I still don't see it happening but perhaps it's more of a hope...
