There are teams with leases that require them to play their home games at the specific stadium, so a lawsuit wouldn't be absurd at all. In fact, when the Bengals signed their new lease, it specifically allowed for them to play two 'home' games elsewhere in any 5 year period, in order to avoid any problems.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200...nal-home-games

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...mes-in-london/

You mean like back in 2012?

LMAO

The Patriots were the visiting team for that game. The Rams were the home team.

Oh....and don't forget 2009 as well.

St. Louis was the "home" team in London and gave up a home game in 2012, not the Patriots.

In 2009 when the Patriots played in London, Tampa was the home team and gave up a home game.

The Patriots have never given up a home game to play in London.

Shit....nevermind. 2009 was an away game as well.

Meh, whatever money the city lost on the game was made up for with the Royals.

810 played the entire interview they had with Hunt on Sunday. It was actually pretty informative. Another reason they pushed for the game this year was the success of the Royals and the booking of the Sports Complex. They tried to bring in more concerts to offset losing a Chiefs game day.

Were season ticket prices at least 15% (3% for inconvenience) lower than the previous year? If not, I'd be figuring out a way to give the Hunts a big old middle finger.

Is the reading comprehension around here approaching zero?

Interesting. Probably means Clark gave some sort of concession to the county the last time the lease was renewed in order to be able to do this.

We just want to be outraged.

Approaching?? No...I'd say the level has been statically there for a while now.

Trying to decide if this false thread title is worth sending the OP an infraction over. Eh, maybe just a neg rep.