Roger Goodell's latest acid trip: a team in London

[JohnnyV13]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

If not Canada, there's still LA (even though I'd rather just move Oakland back from there). But you still have Portland, Virginia, and Salt Lake City.

Originally Posted by cdcox

If it weren't for the logistics, London would be a great market.

But you can't get around the logistics. No way they should do this until the glitches in Star Trek transporter technology get ironed out.

Or they bring back the Concorde.

[Hail2TheChiefs]

Let me express my thoughts, first as a Scotsman (British born) and secondly as an NFL fan.

1- We had a second tier NFL league in Europe with franchises between 1995-2006 in Scotland, England, Spain, Holland and Germany. When the leagues life support machine was pulled, there were 5 teams in Germany and one in Holland. Hardly NFL Europe!

2- Attendences! Apart from a few 40k plus games in Germany the fans didnt support it, my team the Scottish Claymores got 15,000 at one game because the half time entertainment was Deacon Blue! People left after half time! Our average was betweeen 8-10k in Glasgow and Edinburgh and one of the reasons we lost our franchise to Hamburg.

England has a team for 3 seasons, (I say England as they couldn't make it work in London so the last season they "toured the country") in 1998 they lost their franchise to Berlin.

3- One off games vs buying season books - The reason I mention NFLE in the first 2 points is a lot of the "bums on seats" on these games are travelling from all over Europe, I know fans from Glasgow, Dublin, Edinburgh, Amsterdam, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Barcelona, Cologne and Hamburg who travel once a year to see whatever team is on offer. (Cheaper than flying to San Fran or wherever) but the question remains, would they support 8 games?

4- Currency - I mention this as this was a reason for choosing the dutch franchise over the UK one in 2004, that the NFL didn't wish to deal with currency exchanges for both UKP, Euro and USD, now this may have changed but they were very "profits driven" in 2004.

5- Apathy of the GB public, like it or not, over there it will always be a "minority sport", would the GB public support it?

6- NFL Owners, they are big babies, they will not like the idea of increased operating costs travelling to London, and if you are in the division Once a year!

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by Hail2TheChiefs

Let me express my thoughts, first as a Scotsman (British born) and secondly as an NFL fan.

1- We had a second tier NFL league in Europe with franchises between 1995-2006 in Scotland, England, Spain, Holland and Germany. When the leagues life support machine was pulled, there were 5 teams in Germany and one in Holland. Hardly NFL Europe!

2- Attendences! Apart from a few 40k plus games in Germany the fans didnt support it, my team the Scottish Claymores got 15,000 at one game because the half time entertainment was Deacon Blue! People left after half time! Our average was betweeen 8-10k in Glasgow and Edinburgh and one of the reasons we lost our franchise to Hamburg.

England has a team for 3 seasons, (I say England as they couldn't make it work in London so the last season they "toured the country") in 1998 they lost their franchise to Berlin.

3- One off games vs buying season books - The reason I mention NFLE in the first 2 points is a lot of the "bums on seats" on these games are travelling from all over Europe, I know fans from Glasgow, Dublin, Edinburgh, Amsterdam, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Barcelona, Cologne and Hamburg who travel once a year to see whatever team is on offer. (Cheaper than flying to San Fran or wherever) but the question remains, would they support 8 games?

4- Currency - I mention this as this was a reason for choosing the dutch franchise over the UK one in 2004, that the NFL didn't wish to deal with currency exchanges for both UKP, Euro and USD, now this may have changed but they were very "profits driven" in 2004.

5- Apathy of the GB public, like it or not, over there it will always be a "minority sport", would the GB public support it?

6- NFL Owners, they are big babies, they will not like the idea of increased operating costs travelling to London, and if you are in the division Once a year!

I think this post got overlooked, some real insight here as to why a London team wouldnt work.

[beach tribe]

Originally Posted by JohnnyV13

Or they bring back the Concorde.

Thats what I was thinking.

Dont they have planes that can fly NY-LA in 45 min or some shit?

[Arrowhead Thunder]

Originally Posted by cdcox

If it weren't for the logistics, London would be a great market.

But you can't get around the logistics. No way they should do this until the glitches in Star Trek transporter technology get ironed out.

Houston space port, check it out. I think I saw it is only going to cost a couple million in upgrades to the existing airport


houston.culturemap.com/news/travel/09-07-13-crazy-futuristic-plans-are-revealed-for-houstons-new-spaceport-and-officials-insist-its-happening

“This is not a conversation based on science fiction or futuristic projections. This is a conversation about how Houston can access and enhance an industry that is already well-established and growing exponentially.”

As opposed to many current spaceports, the Ellington facility has no plans for the vertical launches most of us associate with spaceflight. Instead, Houston's spaceport would host only orbital and sub-orbital launches primarily for long-distance earthbound travel.

During a March press conference, Diaz described a journey along the edge of space. At speeds as high as Mach 4, Houstonians could fly to Malaysia in less than three hours and to Sweden in 90 minutes.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by Arrowhead Thunderin10038318

Houston space port, check it out. I think I saw it is only going to cost a couple million in upgrades to the existing airport


houston.culturemap.com/news/travel/09-07-13-crazy-futuristic-plans-are-revealed-for-houstons-new-spaceport-and-officials-insist-its-happening

“This is not a conversation based on science fiction or futuristic projections. This is a conversation about how Houston can access and enhance an industry that is already well-established and growing exponentially.”

As opposed to many current spaceports, the Ellington facility has no plans for the vertical launches most of us associate with spaceflight. Instead, Houston's spaceport would host only orbital and sub-orbital launches primarily for long-distance earthbound travel.

During a March press conference, Diaz described a journey along the edge of space. At speeds as high as Mach 4, Houstonians could fly to Malaysia in less than three hours and to Sweden in 90 minutes.

Holy hell....TERRORISTS IN SPACE

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by Arrowhead Thunder

Houston space port, check it out. I think I saw it is only going to cost a couple million in upgrades to the existing airport


houston.culturemap.com/news/travel/09-07-13-crazy-futuristic-plans-are-revealed-for-houstons-new-spaceport-and-officials-insist-its-happening

“This is not a conversation based on science fiction or futuristic projections. This is a conversation about how Houston can access and enhance an industry that is already well-established and growing exponentially.”

As opposed to many current spaceports, the Ellington facility has no plans for the vertical launches most of us associate with spaceflight. Instead, Houston's spaceport would host only orbital and sub-orbital launches primarily for long-distance earthbound travel.

During a March press conference, Diaz described a journey along the edge of space. At speeds as high as Mach 4, Houstonians could fly to Malaysia in less than three hours and to Sweden in 90 minutes.

Oh hell no...

[cdcox]

32 is also the perfect number of teams. Not enough talent for more at the moment.

[KC_Connection]

The logistics of a Toronto move would make much more sense. There's a ton of money there too and a NFL fanbase already in place.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

The logistics of a Toronto move would make much more sense. There's a ton of money there too and a NFL fanbase already in place.

I agree but after Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, the markets get pretty small. That won't get the NFL the growth it is looking for.

Mexico doesn't have enough wealthy people.

The NFL wants to concur Europe, and sees London as the beachhead. I don't see how they can make the jump across the pond, as much as they would like to.

[Inspector]

Nice to be rich. We haven't seen any good acid around here for years.

[GoChargers]

It seems Goodell won't rest until the NFL is no longer the #1 sport in America, because that's what's coming if he keeps pushing these insane ideas while gouging the fans and watering down the product with rule changes.

A team in London would be a logistical nightmare and money pit that no one would ever want to play for. Goodell is only pushing for it because his overinflated ego and belief that the NFL is invincible gives him the delusion to think he can compete with soccer in Europe. This guy is a clown and so is every owner who enables his bullshit.

[CrazyPhuD]

Given that London is a world financial hub, the London Raiders would probably be the most apropos.

[JD10367]

The logistics aren't as difficult as you'd think. Flying from the east coast to London is two hours more than flying to the west coast. The London team would probably play 4 home games, then 4 games in the U.S. starting with the east coast and moving west weekly, ending with a bye to return home and do the cycle over. Road teams from the west coast would play on the east coast first, then head overseas the second week. It's doable.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by JD10367

The logistics aren't as difficult as you'd think. Flying from the east coast to London is two hours more than flying to the west coast. The London team would probably play 4 home games, then 4 games in the U.S. starting with the east coast and moving west weekly, ending with a bye to return home and do the cycle over. Road teams from the west coast would play on the east coast first, then head overseas the second week. It's doable.

It's doable, but will significantly hurt competition.

Winning percentage falls off when team travels from coast-to-coast. I've seen studies that document this. Adding 2 hours to that trip will make the situation worse.

A 4 week road trip???? I think there are statistics that show teams really suffer in win percentage on the 2nd consecutive game on the road.

Teams almost always returns home between road games. There is a reason for this. I can't imagine prepping for a game with makeshift facilities while traveling.

Once a London team reaches respectability, I could see a lot of 7-9 to 9-7 seasons, where they hold service at home and flop on the road. In that case, the team becomes irrelevant in terms of the competitive balance of the league.