Re: Steve Mascord Article : Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:19 pm  

IMHO there will be an NFL team in London within 10 years.

Re: Steve Mascord Article : Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:29 pm  

Paddock Punter wrote:

IMHO there will be an NFL team in London within 10 years.

The same predictions were made in the 1980's

Transplanting a new sport into a new country is a difficult task. Just look at the problems RL has had moving 200 miles south, albeit not a great example.

Soccer has never really made it in the US despite all their millions and a World Cup!

Re: Steve Mascord Article : Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:15 pm  

Paddock Punter wrote:

IMHO there will be an NFL team in London within 10 years.

Maybe we could ground share with them?

Re: Steve Mascord Article : Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:37 pm  

rob13 wrote: a) no there is talk of moving a franchise to London fully, see the article and see elsewhere, it's not just hype it's being touted very seriously. here's another recent article http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/jason ... e-best-fit The general understanding seems to be that if they deem it a profitable venture then the NFL will do what's necessary to make it happen b & c) the point is not whether the individual situation is the same but rather whether the "idea" itself is "stupid" as cited by the poster I was originally responding too. i am obviously aware that there are huge differences between the NFL and NRL, between America and Australia. the "idea" of locating a franchise in London as part of a foreign-based league itself however is not something that is so "stupid" that "only RL would consider it". a) It's talk nothing more b) & c) no, it isn't stupid to have a foreign team in a domestic league; Catalans and New Zealand are not "stupid" but what is stupid is to pretend that the logistics involved are comparable to the occasional NFL game in London or a Super Rugby game between Dunedin and Durban.

rob13 wrote: a) no there is talk of moving a franchise to London fully, see the article and see elsewhere, it's not just hype it's being touted very seriously. here's another recent article http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/jason ... e-best-fit The general understanding seems to be that if they deem it a profitable venture then the NFL will do what's necessary to make it happen b & c) the point is not whether the individual situation is the same but rather whether the "idea" itself is "stupid" as cited by the poster I was originally responding too. i am obviously aware that there are huge differences between the NFL and NRL, between America and Australia. the "idea" of locating a franchise in London as part of a foreign-based league itself however is not something that is so "stupid" that "only RL would consider it". a) It's talk nothing more b) & c) no, it isn't stupid to have a foreign team in a domestic league; Catalans and New Zealand are not "stupid" but what is stupid is to pretend that the logistics involved are comparable to the occasional NFL game in London or a Super Rugby game between Dunedin and Durban.

Re: Steve Mascord Article : Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:39 pm  

rob13 wrote:

and to add to my comments:
b) the funding would be done by the NRL obviously who do have the cash, not NFL cash admittedly but more cash than London RL in its current state is familiar with.
c) Only 6 of 16 NFL fixtures a year are divisional, i.e. guaranteed to be played against regional teams (so East coast for any potential London franchise). There would be plenty of games against West coast teams each year as well, up to 8 I think not including potential playoff appearances (NFL fixtures rotate year-on-year by divisions and seedings). However, the shorter fixture list of the NFL season does work in a potential London team's favour in this case over a potential London NRL team.

b) And why would they do that? It would cost a lot less and do them much more good to put a team in Perth instead. Something that they have failed to do.
c) This is why it won't happen. And even if it did, it would still not be comparable. The West coast of the USA isn't as far as New South Wales.

Re: Steve Mascord Article : Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:57 am  

Hedgehog King wrote: a) It's talk nothing more b) & c) no, it isn't stupid to have a foreign team in a domestic league; Catalans and New Zealand are not "stupid" but what is stupid is to pretend that the logistics involved are comparable to the occasional NFL game in London or a Super Rugby game between Dunedin and Durban. b) And why would they do that? It would cost a lot less and do them much more good to put a team in Perth instead. Something that they have failed to do. c) This is why it won't happen. And even if it did, it would still not be comparable. The West coast of the USA isn't as far as New South Wales. a) talk coming from the chief commissioner of the league no less. whether it happens or not, clearly its being "taken seriously" https://twitter.com/HubbuchNYP/status/3 ... 6229582848 http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100000 ... -in-london b & c) on the first post you've heavily misrepresented my point there, at no point have I cited anything about the occasional NFL games, only the potential of moving a franchise permanently, which is evidently something the NFL is considering if you see above. on the second post, yes there are differences in the logistics that would make an NRL move significantly more difficult which I have acknowledged, the distance being the main one, but to say there are NO similarities between a potential London NFL franchise and a potential London NRL franchise is ludicrous. again, whether the former happens or not my aim was only to point out that it is at least being taken seriously as an idea and to draw attention to the similarities between the two, im not here to debate the viability of either

Hedgehog King wrote: a) It's talk nothing more b) & c) no, it isn't stupid to have a foreign team in a domestic league; Catalans and New Zealand are not "stupid" but what is stupid is to pretend that the logistics involved are comparable to the occasional NFL game in London or a Super Rugby game between Dunedin and Durban. b) And why would they do that? It would cost a lot less and do them much more good to put a team in Perth instead. Something that they have failed to do. c) This is why it won't happen. And even if it did, it would still not be comparable. The West coast of the USA isn't as far as New South Wales. a) talk coming from the chief commissioner of the league no less. whether it happens or not, clearly its being "taken seriously" https://twitter.com/HubbuchNYP/status/3 ... 6229582848 http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100000 ... -in-london b & c) on the first post you've heavily misrepresented my point there, at no point have I cited anything about the occasional NFL games, only the potential of moving a franchise permanently, which is evidently something the NFL is considering if you see above. on the second post, yes there are differences in the logistics that would make an NRL move significantly more difficult which I have acknowledged, the distance being the main one, but to say there are NO similarities between a potential London NFL franchise and a potential London NRL franchise is ludicrous. again, whether the former happens or not my aim was only to point out that it is at least being taken seriously as an idea and to draw attention to the similarities between the two, im not here to debate the viability of either

Re: Steve Mascord Article : Thu Aug 01, 2013 6:45 pm  

rob13 wrote: a) talk coming from the chief commissioner of the league no less. whether it happens or not, clearly its being "taken seriously" https://twitter.com/HubbuchNYP/status/3 ... 6229582848 http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100000 ... -in-london b & c) on the first post you've heavily misrepresented my point there, at no point have I cited anything about the occasional NFL games, only the potential of moving a franchise permanently, which is evidently something the NFL is considering if you see above. on the second post, yes there are differences in the logistics that would make an NRL move significantly more difficult which I have acknowledged, the distance being the main one, but to say there are NO similarities between a potential London NFL franchise and a potential London NRL franchise is ludicrous. again, whether the former happens or not my aim was only to point out that it is at least being taken seriously as an idea and to draw attention to the similarities between the two, im not here to debate the viability of either Flying to the moon and flying to Mars might have "some similarities" but just because one is viable (if difficult) doesn't mean the other is viable. The NFL have been able to hold the occasional game in London - that's a proven fact. Yes, I get it that there is a discussion about doing more than this but it's just a discussion. It is far from certain whether it is viable from many different angles. Steve Mascord's article goes far beyond what the NFL, with their vast resources, are pondering. The NFL don't know if the Atlantic Ocean can be crossed with this regularity by a professional sports franchise despite having a budget of millions and yet he gives no more than a couple of sentences to dismissing the logistical difficulties of a far more ambitious project with far fewer resources. That's why it is breathtakingly stupid. And yet "thinking big" always gets applause in rugby league because there are so many dreamers.

rob13 wrote: a) talk coming from the chief commissioner of the league no less. whether it happens or not, clearly its being "taken seriously" https://twitter.com/HubbuchNYP/status/3 ... 6229582848 http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100000 ... -in-london b & c) on the first post you've heavily misrepresented my point there, at no point have I cited anything about the occasional NFL games, only the potential of moving a franchise permanently, which is evidently something the NFL is considering if you see above. on the second post, yes there are differences in the logistics that would make an NRL move significantly more difficult which I have acknowledged, the distance being the main one, but to say there are NO similarities between a potential London NFL franchise and a potential London NRL franchise is ludicrous. again, whether the former happens or not my aim was only to point out that it is at least being taken seriously as an idea and to draw attention to the similarities between the two, im not here to debate the viability of either Flying to the moon and flying to Mars might have "some similarities" but just because one is viable (if difficult) doesn't mean the other is viable. The NFL have been able to hold the occasional game in London - that's a proven fact. Yes, I get it that there is a discussion about doing more than this but it's just a discussion. It is far from certain whether it is viable from many different angles. Steve Mascord's article goes far beyond what the NFL, with their vast resources, are pondering. The NFL don't know if the Atlantic Ocean can be crossed with this regularity by a professional sports franchise despite having a budget of millions and yet he gives no more than a couple of sentences to dismissing the logistical difficulties of a far more ambitious project with far fewer resources. That's why it is breathtakingly stupid. And yet "thinking big" always gets applause in rugby league because there are so many dreamers.