LA WILL have a team, and I agree it's most likely to be St. Louis. That being said, I very honestly wouldn't be surprised to hear that Jacksonville's being relocated to London at some point in the very near future as well. London so very badly wants a team, and the NFL wants a team in London.

Personal opinion? I think what would make sense would be to have a team in London, Munich, and Dublin. That way teams traveling could cut expenses by doing a three game stretch over there as oppose to simply one and done games. Those teams could then share expenses to do a sweep through their US schedules, ect. There's a bigger demand for NFL football in Europe than most folks realize. As a buddy of mine who lives in London pointed out to me, the NFL season fits in the off season of nearly every major sport being played over there now as it is.

London badly wants a team? According to who/what? I'm sure the Premiere League is way more important to them and American Football is like their Association Football is to us.

But I agree on having multiple teams there and would even throw in Berlin.

(05-21-2015 08:59 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  I don't think the Rams can move if St. Louis comes up with money for a new stadium. I think the Raiders are a lock to move, the Chargers are 50/50 stadium financing is by no means certain in San Diego. The 2nd team could be Jacksonville. There is a longshot possibility that Carolina could end up as a candidate. Richardson has it in his will the team must be sold within two years of his death. New owner will want a new stadium, the fact the current stadium is owned by the Panthers financed in large part with PSLs will make a new stadium nearly impossible in Charlotte.

Jacksonville isn't free yet.

They were another of Bud Adams mistakes. They won't stay in Jacksonville, but they will be late to the LA party. The 3 former LA teams have first shot.

(05-22-2015 08:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 08:59 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  I don't think the Rams can move if St. Louis comes up with money for a new stadium. I think the Raiders are a lock to move, the Chargers are 50/50 stadium financing is by no means certain in San Diego. The 2nd team could be Jacksonville. There is a longshot possibility that Carolina could end up as a candidate. Richardson has it in his will the team must be sold within two years of his death. New owner will want a new stadium, the fact the current stadium is owned by the Panthers financed in large part with PSLs will make a new stadium nearly impossible in Charlotte.

Jacksonville isn't free yet.

They were another of Bud Adams mistakes. They won't stay in Jacksonville, but they will be late to the LA party. The 3 former LA teams have first shot.

Yup...don't think they are long for Jacksonville...when the Rams leave I can see them in Saint Louis if they are not in London.

ITs probably a lock LA will have 2 teams soon from the rams, raiders and chargers but who knows how it will play out. I give the edge to the rams being the team building the stadium. IF the chargers can get a new stadium than they remain in SD with the raiders sharing with the rams in LA. Otherwise, i'll go with the rams/chargers teaming up in LA and the raiders locked out. At that point, the raiders will pick between cutting a deal with the 49ers or moving to st louis if they have a decent stadium offer since i can't see oakland building a new stadium for them.

(05-22-2015 06:28 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  LA WILL have a team, and I agree it's most likely to be St. Louis. That being said, I very honestly wouldn't be surprised to hear that Jacksonville's being relocated to London at some point in the very near future as well. London so very badly wants a team, and the NFL wants a team in London.

Personal opinion? I think what would make sense would be to have a team in London, Munich, and Dublin. That way teams traveling could cut expenses by doing a three game stretch over there as oppose to simply one and done games. Those teams could then share expenses to do a sweep through their US schedules, ect. There's a bigger demand for NFL football in Europe than most folks realize. As a buddy of mine who lives in London pointed out to me, the NFL season fits in the off season of nearly every major sport being played over there now as it is.

i think speculation is that it would cost close to $100M to break the lease to the Jaguars stadium. Which is a lot of money but not a deal breaker.

I disagree you need a 2nd team in Europe. Its just a little extra long flight to London, that's all, and teams will want to go home after the game is over, and sleep in their own beds.

If you put London in a division with New England, New York and Miami, travel is not that big of deal. If the NFL re-aligns into east and west conferences, then its really no big deal at all.

(05-22-2015 12:15 PM)goofus Wrote:  I disagree you need a 2nd team in Europe. Its just a little extra long flight to London, that's all, and teams will want to go home after the game is over, and sleep in their own beds.

If you put London in a division with New England, New York and Miami, travel is not that big of deal. If the NFL re-aligns into east and west conferences, then its really no big deal at all.

I think the travel would be a big enough deal for the players that it would be difficult to recruit free agents for the London teams and the other teams in London's division would complain constantly about the travel. Every team now plays 10 games outside their own division, so a London team won't just play teams in the northeast. London to SFO nonstop is a 10.5 hour flight, even London to DFW is a 9.5 hour flight.

(05-22-2015 12:15 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 06:28 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  LA WILL have a team, and I agree it's most likely to be St. Louis. That being said, I very honestly wouldn't be surprised to hear that Jacksonville's being relocated to London at some point in the very near future as well. London so very badly wants a team, and the NFL wants a team in London.

Personal opinion? I think what would make sense would be to have a team in London, Munich, and Dublin. That way teams traveling could cut expenses by doing a three game stretch over there as oppose to simply one and done games. Those teams could then share expenses to do a sweep through their US schedules, ect. There's a bigger demand for NFL football in Europe than most folks realize. As a buddy of mine who lives in London pointed out to me, the NFL season fits in the off season of nearly every major sport being played over there now as it is.

i think speculation is that it would cost close to $100M to break the lease to the Jaguars stadium. Which is a lot of money but not a deal breaker.

I disagree you need a 2nd team in Europe. Its just a little extra long flight to London, that's all, and teams will want to go home after the game is over, and sleep in their own beds.

If you put London in a division with New England, New York and Miami, travel is not that big of deal. If the NFL re-aligns into east and west conferences, then its really no big deal at all.

Absolutely agree. Flying to London from Boston or New York is not all that different than flying from Boston or New York to the west coast. The difference is they will be doing it once a season guaranteed. The problem is Buffalo gets left out of the division which the owners of those 4 teams won't go for. The divisions in the NFL, particularly the NFC North, NFC East and AFC East, are primarily designed around the major rivalries the teams hold.

(05-22-2015 10:28 AM)bluesox Wrote:  ITs probably a lock LA will have 2 teams soon from the rams, raiders and chargers but who knows how it will play out. I give the edge to the rams being the team building the stadium. IF the chargers can get a new stadium than they remain in SD with the raiders sharing with the rams in LA. Otherwise, i'll go with the rams/chargers teaming up in LA and the raiders locked out. At that point, the raiders will pick between cutting a deal with the 49ers or moving to st louis if they have a decent stadium offer since i can't see oakland building a new stadium for them.

The Bay Area really doesn't need two teams. Even Chicago only has one. Its hard to imagine DFW or Houston or DC, similarly sized metro areas, having two teams. The Raiders are the most logical one to move. But logic isn't how they decide these things.

(05-22-2015 01:08 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 12:15 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 06:28 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  LA WILL have a team, and I agree it's most likely to be St. Louis. That being said, I very honestly wouldn't be surprised to hear that Jacksonville's being relocated to London at some point in the very near future as well. London so very badly wants a team, and the NFL wants a team in London.

Personal opinion? I think what would make sense would be to have a team in London, Munich, and Dublin. That way teams traveling could cut expenses by doing a three game stretch over there as oppose to simply one and done games. Those teams could then share expenses to do a sweep through their US schedules, ect. There's a bigger demand for NFL football in Europe than most folks realize. As a buddy of mine who lives in London pointed out to me, the NFL season fits in the off season of nearly every major sport being played over there now as it is.

i think speculation is that it would cost close to $100M to break the lease to the Jaguars stadium. Which is a lot of money but not a deal breaker.

I disagree you need a 2nd team in Europe. Its just a little extra long flight to London, that's all, and teams will want to go home after the game is over, and sleep in their own beds.

If you put London in a division with New England, New York and Miami, travel is not that big of deal. If the NFL re-aligns into east and west conferences, then its really no big deal at all.

Absolutely agree. Flying to London from Boston or New York is not all that different than flying from Boston or New York to the west coast. The difference is they will be doing it once a season guaranteed. The problem is Buffalo gets left out of the division which the owners of those 4 teams won't go for. The divisions in the NFL, particularly the NFC North, NFC East and AFC East, are primarily designed around the major rivalries the teams hold.

hmm, maybe the answer is 5, 6 or 8 team divisions.

AFC East
London Jaguars, Miami, NYJ, NE, Buf

AFC Central
Balt, Pitt, Cle, Cincy, Tenn, Indy

AFC west
SD, Oak, Den, KC, Hou

(05-22-2015 01:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 10:28 AM)bluesox Wrote:  ITs probably a lock LA will have 2 teams soon from the rams, raiders and chargers but who knows how it will play out. I give the edge to the rams being the team building the stadium. IF the chargers can get a new stadium than they remain in SD with the raiders sharing with the rams in LA. Otherwise, i'll go with the rams/chargers teaming up in LA and the raiders locked out. At that point, the raiders will pick between cutting a deal with the 49ers or moving to st louis if they have a decent stadium offer since i can't see oakland building a new stadium for them.

The Bay Area really doesn't need two teams. Even Chicago only has one. Its hard to imagine DFW or Houston or DC, similarly sized metro areas, having two teams. The Raiders are the most logical one to move. But logic isn't how they decide these things.

DC doesn't have an NFL franchise in its territory. The Redskins and Ravens play 30 miles apart in Maryland.

See Redskins/Ravens map

(05-22-2015 01:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 10:28 AM)bluesox Wrote:  ITs probably a lock LA will have 2 teams soon from the rams, raiders and chargers but who knows how it will play out. I give the edge to the rams being the team building the stadium. IF the chargers can get a new stadium than they remain in SD with the raiders sharing with the rams in LA. Otherwise, i'll go with the rams/chargers teaming up in LA and the raiders locked out. At that point, the raiders will pick between cutting a deal with the 49ers or moving to st louis if they have a decent stadium offer since i can't see oakland building a new stadium for them.

The Bay Area really doesn't need two teams. Even Chicago only has one. Its hard to imagine DFW or Houston or DC, similarly sized metro areas, having two teams. The Raiders are the most logical one to move. But logic isn't how they decide these things.

DFW is at 7 million people and growing. It's transient and not everyone is a Cowboys fan nor can they all afford tickets. Place a team in somewhere like Plano and Frisco and it could survive. As a matter of fact, it could probably survive better than in a place like Jacksonville as it's not as if there wouldn't be Cowboys fans that wouldn't go to games at the stadium of the other team.

(05-22-2015 01:08 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 12:15 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 06:28 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  LA WILL have a team, and I agree it's most likely to be St. Louis. That being said, I very honestly wouldn't be surprised to hear that Jacksonville's being relocated to London at some point in the very near future as well. London so very badly wants a team, and the NFL wants a team in London.

Personal opinion? I think what would make sense would be to have a team in London, Munich, and Dublin. That way teams traveling could cut expenses by doing a three game stretch over there as oppose to simply one and done games. Those teams could then share expenses to do a sweep through their US schedules, ect. There's a bigger demand for NFL football in Europe than most folks realize. As a buddy of mine who lives in London pointed out to me, the NFL season fits in the off season of nearly every major sport being played over there now as it is.

i think speculation is that it would cost close to $100M to break the lease to the Jaguars stadium. Which is a lot of money but not a deal breaker.

I disagree you need a 2nd team in Europe. Its just a little extra long flight to London, that's all, and teams will want to go home after the game is over, and sleep in their own beds.

If you put London in a division with New England, New York and Miami, travel is not that big of deal. If the NFL re-aligns into east and west conferences, then its really no big deal at all.

Absolutely agree. Flying to London from Boston or New York is not all that different than flying from Boston or New York to the west coast. The difference is they will be doing it once a season guaranteed. The problem is Buffalo gets left out of the division which the owners of those 4 teams won't go for. The divisions in the NFL, particularly the NFC North, NFC East and AFC East, are primarily designed around the major rivalries the teams hold.

Though the Northeast owners would hate their yearly Fall/Winter vacation to Miami and of course decades of history with them, they'd be the most logical team to move to the South. Actually, the division alignment would depend on who would move there or if it were expansion.

(05-22-2015 04:10 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 01:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 10:28 AM)bluesox Wrote:  ITs probably a lock LA will have 2 teams soon from the rams, raiders and chargers but who knows how it will play out. I give the edge to the rams being the team building the stadium. IF the chargers can get a new stadium than they remain in SD with the raiders sharing with the rams in LA. Otherwise, i'll go with the rams/chargers teaming up in LA and the raiders locked out. At that point, the raiders will pick between cutting a deal with the 49ers or moving to st louis if they have a decent stadium offer since i can't see oakland building a new stadium for them.

The Bay Area really doesn't need two teams. Even Chicago only has one. Its hard to imagine DFW or Houston or DC, similarly sized metro areas, having two teams. The Raiders are the most logical one to move. But logic isn't how they decide these things.

DC doesn't have an NFL franchise in its territory. The Redskins and Ravens play 30 miles apart in Maryland.

See Redskins/Ravens map

He never said it did, just that it'd be hard to imagine for DC itself, independent of Baltimore. And despite that, I still say DC has another team in it's region, even if they don't closely identify with each other. It's not as if there aren't households in the common suburbs that don't have season tickets to both or at least neighbors who do.

(05-22-2015 04:35 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 04:10 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 01:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 10:28 AM)bluesox Wrote:  ITs probably a lock LA will have 2 teams soon from the rams, raiders and chargers but who knows how it will play out. I give the edge to the rams being the team building the stadium. IF the chargers can get a new stadium than they remain in SD with the raiders sharing with the rams in LA. Otherwise, i'll go with the rams/chargers teaming up in LA and the raiders locked out. At that point, the raiders will pick between cutting a deal with the 49ers or moving to st louis if they have a decent stadium offer since i can't see oakland building a new stadium for them.

The Bay Area really doesn't need two teams. Even Chicago only has one. Its hard to imagine DFW or Houston or DC, similarly sized metro areas, having two teams. The Raiders are the most logical one to move. But logic isn't how they decide these things.

DC doesn't have an NFL franchise in its territory. The Redskins and Ravens play 30 miles apart in Maryland.

See Redskins/Ravens map

He never said it did, just that it'd be hard to imagine for DC itself, independent of Baltimore. And despite that, I still say DC has another team in it's region, even if they don't closely identify with each other. It's not as if there aren't households in the common suburbs that don't have season tickets to both or at least neighbors who do.

Through mismanagement the Redskins are losing ground to the Ravens right in the backyard of their stadium.

FedEx field is 20 years old and there is talk of building the next stadium back in DC or even over the river in Virginia. A franchise in retreat.

I must have missed all of the public protests complaining about LA not having a team.

(05-22-2015 05:12 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I must have missed all of the public protests complaining about LA not having a team.

You haven't been in ABC, NBC, CBS and ESPN's offices in the last few years.

(05-22-2015 03:23 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 01:08 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 12:15 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 06:28 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  LA WILL have a team, and I agree it's most likely to be St. Louis. That being said, I very honestly wouldn't be surprised to hear that Jacksonville's being relocated to London at some point in the very near future as well. London so very badly wants a team, and the NFL wants a team in London.

Personal opinion? I think what would make sense would be to have a team in London, Munich, and Dublin. That way teams traveling could cut expenses by doing a three game stretch over there as oppose to simply one and done games. Those teams could then share expenses to do a sweep through their US schedules, ect. There's a bigger demand for NFL football in Europe than most folks realize. As a buddy of mine who lives in London pointed out to me, the NFL season fits in the off season of nearly every major sport being played over there now as it is.

i think speculation is that it would cost close to $100M to break the lease to the Jaguars stadium. Which is a lot of money but not a deal breaker.

I disagree you need a 2nd team in Europe. Its just a little extra long flight to London, that's all, and teams will want to go home after the game is over, and sleep in their own beds.

If you put London in a division with New England, New York and Miami, travel is not that big of deal. If the NFL re-aligns into east and west conferences, then its really no big deal at all.

Absolutely agree. Flying to London from Boston or New York is not all that different than flying from Boston or New York to the west coast. The difference is they will be doing it once a season guaranteed. The problem is Buffalo gets left out of the division which the owners of those 4 teams won't go for. The divisions in the NFL, particularly the NFC North, NFC East and AFC East, are primarily designed around the major rivalries the teams hold.

hmm, maybe the answer is 5, 6 or 8 team divisions.

AFC East
London Jaguars, Miami, NYJ, NE, Buf

AFC Central
Balt, Pitt, Cle, Cincy, Tenn, Indy

AFC west
SD, Oak, Den, KC, Hou

Of course that does not work as well for the NFC.

NFC east
NYG, Philly, Wash, Car, Dal

NFC Central
Minn, GB, Chi, Det, Atl, Tampa

NFC west
Sea, SF, PHX, StL, NO

(05-22-2015 07:02 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  London badly wants a team? According to who/what? I'm sure the Premiere League is way more important to them and American Football is like their Association Football is to us.

But I agree on having multiple teams there and would even throw in Berlin.

Uhm...according to Londoners?

I could care less if the NFL has an LA franchise, so long as my Panthers stay in Charlotte I'm good. LA managed to lose two teams and in the same year, does enough people in LA even care if they have a team? Is there evidence that the NFL has terrible ratings in the LA TV market to even require a team to "fix" the problem?

(05-22-2015 08:06 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 07:02 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  London badly wants a team? According to who/what? I'm sure the Premiere League is way more important to them and American Football is like their Association Football is to us.

But I agree on having multiple teams there and would even throw in Berlin.

Uhm...according to Londoners?

Maybe American ex-pats? London probably has enough to fill Wimbley 8 times a year; but I'm not sure 16 games a year would average over the 1M mark nation-wide for TV eyeballs.

Actually I (oddly, I admit) have quite a few Londoner friends. Truth be told, I never thought twice about it until they mentioned it once before as to how popular NFL is over there. There's a bigger appetite for it than I think most people here realize.