Why regular season games in London??

Assume everyone has heard by now that the Rams are playing games in London in each of the next 3 seasons. My question is "WHY?" Why is Roger sending regular season games to non-NFL sities? Do teams have the option to participate in this. I hope we never have to go over there. I hear the players don't like it, but who really knows. Since it takes away a home game, how are season ticket holders compensated?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Oh, and... :goodell:

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Oh, I know. But that don't make it right!

 

Never said it was right.

As far as fans being compensated - they buy tickets by choice. If someone doesn't want to buy them because they might miss a home game, there are 5,000 fans (or however many) on the waiting list that would jump at the chance to buy them.

 

They are 'compensated' by only having to pay for 7 home games in their season ticket package, instead of 8.

Personnally, I have no problem with it. i'd love to have a chance to attend an English Premier League match played over here.

 

Well, they probably did it to the Rams because they aren't any good. You can't take what I assume will be a home game away from a team that actually draws, can you?
The better solution is to move the Pro Bowl back to after the Super Bowl, and make that a traveling show so the international audience can see the supposed best of the best.

 

Why can't Goodell take a team that puts fans in the seats to London?

The best of the best barely play tackle football in the Pro Bowl... and that is if they even want to play.

 

I assume he can, but one of my questions was do the teams in question have the option to say no. Remember, Roger does (or is supposed to) work for the owners and if an owner does not want to play in London, can the team decline?

And I do agree with you, Pro Bowl is not the answer to this issue. The Pro Bowl is a joke and I don't even see why they have it.

 

Ive heard this logic used as evidence that the Steelers/Cowboys game will be moved to London next year. Hopefully it doesn't come to pass as a friend of mine is a Cowboys fan and we have already started thinking about a road trip to Dallas. Please Roger don't ruin a kick ass time for me!

 

Roger is a fool. This is such a stupid idea.

 

I like this idea a lot. I don't know anybody that likes the pro bowl before the super bowl, and it would give all the fans on the other side of the pond a chance to see all their favorite players. Heck, maybe people would actually care about the pb then.

 

agreed doesnt it always rain there anyway?

 

I'll take a Steelers vs anybody in London, so long as it's not a Steelers home game. The advantage has to go to the road team. Not that being in London is an advantage, versus the home team losing it's homefield advantage.

 

Always would be a bit of an exaggeration, but they do get quite a bit.

 

The Rams are owned by Stan Kroenke, who is also the majority shareholder in the English soccer club Arsenal so I am guessing he readily agreed to the arrangement of one game per year in London.

 

Doubt it. What if every team said no?

 

What's the franchise fee on an NFL expansion team these days? Gotta be a bunch of cities over there they'd like to sign up. Just like printing money, only legal.

 

I am not in favor of playing games outside the US, more greed.

 

We'll all need to get used to it. The world keeps getting smaller all the time and the appetite for WW revenue by american corporations keeps getting larger and the NFL wants to play in that game. Five years from now don't be surprised to see NFL teams in at least 2 or 3 major cities abroad ie, London, Tokyo, Toronto, Mexico city, etc.

 

I agree with this, but I don't like it. What a nightmare if the Steelers have to play in Tokyo..... uggggh ..... even London... the time difference, etc. At least for now, they should make sure that teams that have to travel overseas are the ones who can't fill the seats in their own stadium - aka Bengirls, Jaguars, etc.

 

Other sports fans around the world get used to time zone issues. I've fortunate to travel around a fair bit. Take Australia, cricket fans there are used to their team playing in England, Carribean, India. They get up at 3AM and watch the matches. Same with Rugby Union, there's a league that has teams from NZ, Aus and South Africa, it covers 9 time zones or something.

I really don't understand the emotion around this. How is it bad if people in other parts of the world start to enjoy the same game you do, for the same reasons you do?

 

Do you know how the teams that travel overseas are compensated, if at all?

 

Ha! I'm not thinking about the PLAYERS adjusting to time differences! I'm thinking SELFISHLY. I don't want to have to get up at 2 AM or some other ungodly hour just to watch my team live. I know it's going to happen some day, but I hope until it does, teams who cannot sell out their own home games are the ones who have to go.

 

Robert Kraft seems to be OK with the London games.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/01/20/could-patriots-play-in-london-in-2012/