Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'NFL Forum' started by Aenir, Oct 26, 2013.
LA will get one first, then London. Or perhaps at the same time, but that will take some time to pull off.
They need to get rid of those stupid ass Thursday games though.
Yes, get rid of thursday. Hell, get rid of monday, if you're going to continually play **** teams on monday night. As for London, good luck finding a roster willing to go over there...
Players will have to go over there, thats what they get paid for. Their only other option is to refuse to play in the NFL entirely.
Yeah, but fewer players will want the hassle involved in that type of travel. Then again, they could live as anonymously as they could get the chance over there. Then again, tax rates are significantly higher over there...
the "hassle" is no different then West Coast teams playing East Coast teams.
Screw LA a bunch of liberal pricks at least England understands a mans game like rugby.
Stupid idea putting an NFL team in a foreign city but nothing wrong with L.A. getting the NFL Back.
I think I'd honestly rather have a NFL team in London over another team in LA, how many chances should 1 city get only to have the team up and leave again b/c no one cares about the product in that town? I get it, it's a huge market, what 2nd largest, but if town doesn't care, building a pretty new stadium and brining in another team that couldn't succeed elsewhere isn't going to succeed in LA. I honestly believe they would need to expand a team in LA rather then move an existing one there, then it MIGHT stand a chance.
Really I think they should get a team into Mexico City or in Canada before they goto London though. I also heard that India actually really likes American football, and understand the rules, seems like that is another(although even further away) option over London.
What is the need to have an NFL team anywhere outside the US? Plus Canada already has a league.
The fact you think a franchise should even be placed outside the US is ridiculous.
Also you say L.A. had their chances. Well L.A.'s not the only city that's lost teams. Plus what makes you so sure nobody in that city is not interested?
Are you aware the Rams were in that city for almost 50 years? I don't know what things were like in the end but for The Rams to have existed there for so long it's laughable that one would have a problem with it.
Plus how long are we gonna hold a grudge against the city for losing 2 teams in one year?
I dunno...have to remember too that the 80s were a completely different era in the NFL, so you cant really blame it all on the city of LA. They are still pretty supportive of their other pro (and even College) franchises, like the Lakers, and even the Clippers now, the Dodgers and Angels, the Ducks even. Then of course you have the Trojans and Bruins in college football that are pretty popular there.
No LA is not the only city to lose a team, but I'm pretty sure it's the only city to lose 3.
Why is it ridiculous to look outside the country to place a team and create a global market? The fact that you're so micro in your thought is equally ridiciulous.
weeee 50 years, and they left, and then the Raiders came in...and left....twice....congrats.
Grudge, no grudge, LA isn't an NFL town, that's not a grudge that's a fact.
They want to move to London to increase their Global appeal. NFLE was a joke, yet Europeans still love American Football...they show up to watch even the most crappiest of NFL teams play, not to mention...just look around this board and see how many Bears Brothers are across the pond. How psyched would they be to get to watch the Bears play a London NFL team?
I look at the Trojans and Bruins as LA's pro teams, they are certainly paid that way.....ZZZZIIIIIIINNNNNG!!!
but seriously, I think LA has 2 great pro BB teams, has 2 good MLB teams, has a hockey team, AND has 2 college football teams, and on top of that has a great night life, unless you can get a team that is ready made to succeed, they are not going to give the NFL the time of day.
Point is, LA is a HUUUUUUGE market, tens of millions of people live in that area, and we are basically an entire generation removed from when LA last had a team, so i dont think past LA teams' failures in LA should be used as justification to deny them a franchise. If the city has the $$$ to build a stadium (which they will bilk the taxpayers for anyway), then they should get a team.
I think it is obvious that they cannot sustain a NFL team
Your data used to make that assumptions is over 20 years old.
Well he'd be able to use newer data, but no team has been there since. You cannot throw out the data as to old, unless you have newer date replace it with.
Again I'm fully aware that they are the 2nd largest market, but unlike the 1st and 3rd largest markets(NY and Chicago) it also has MUCH better weather year round, and a SHIT ton more to do, 2 basketball teams, 2 baseball teams, a hokey team, 1 soccor team, 2 really good college sports teams, a huge social network outside of sports, it leaves the fanbase to thinly spread. ya there is tons to do in Chicago and NY, and a lot of different teams but both NY and Chicago get their football from their pro teams, not college.
Oh come on...now youre just stretching. The weather? really? Thats what is stopping an NFL team from being successful in LA?
The only two major obstacles stopping LA from getting an NFL franchise is a stadium, and that the NFL wants to wait until they add 2 teams to even up the re-alignment. Why people are so opposed to an LA franchise or think it wont work simply because of the Rams/Raiders in the 80s is beyond me.