Sooooooo what was the point behind the London 'home' game again?
 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Roger Goodell on possibility of a Super Bowl in Kansas City: &quot;That&#39;s not being seriously contemplated.&quot; <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/chiefs?src=hash">#chiefs</a></p>&mdash; Jeff Rosen (@jeff_rosen88) <a href="https://twitter.com/jeff_rosen88/status/591677482031525888">April 24, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Anyone who thought we might get a SB because of it was out of their goddamn mind.

I don't disagree, but that was the justification for giving up the home game..

It was in some people's minds because Goodell did say something to that effect. He never guaranteed it though. If that's the reason Clark agreed to it then he's as dumb as some of the people on this board.

Because it allows Clark to push his franchise and the NFL brand on people that largely don't and probably won't care about football.

$$$$$ for the league and Clark

Clark agreed to it for the same reason every other owner does, money. Goodell isn't acting in a vacuum here, he just takes all the PR hits for the owners. That's basically his job. The owners want to get teams in LA and London and watch the cash roll in.

This is an outrage!

I mean we have like 25 hotel rooms where were these people going to stay?

Clark Hunt is supportive of the London initiative. Since he owns a team, this is a logical way to show that support and contribute.

Yep, and our food stores would run out on the first day.

I never got the sense the London game was tied to the Super Bowl. I saw it more as Clark earning admiration and money from the people he really wants to impress, at the expense of the people who make the whole enterprise possible.

So that we could get 3 home games in the first 11 weeks.

I can't see a team in London being anything other than a logistical disaster that does nothing but piss off the American fans.