Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 kronk wrote:

 Pacific wrote:


PS - I think it's criminal that LA, a city of that size (is it 10m people?), not having an NFL team. When I was a kid and started watching the game the LA Raiders were always one of the most entertaining teams to watch, not least because of the absolute lunatics you used to get in the crowd (and I mean that in the nicest possible way!)

As Austin said, most of the people there are Raider's fans.

Further, people won't go to the games there. There is a reason there no longer is the LA Raiders or the LA Rams. People wouldn't go to the games. At all. Two failed teams in 20 years? Nah, they had their chances.

Ah ok guys that's interesting! Out of interest why do you think things didn't work out in LA? I remember watching the LA Raiders when I was a kid and the stadium seemed like a seething bowl of people! So presumably it wasn't because of attendance (or was it? The possibility exists here that it may have just been everything seeming massive because I myself was small! )

 Pacific wrote:


Ah ok guys that's interesting! Out of interest why do you think things didn't work out in LA? I remember watching the LA Raiders when I was a kid and the stadium seemed like a seething bowl of people! So presumably it wasn't because of attendance (or was it? The possibility exists here that it may have just been everything seeming massive because I myself was small! )

I think the reasons people have used are somewhat unfair.... The period that the Rams and Raiders were in LA, they were both mediocre to bad teams, with few years of exception. The biggest reason that I can think of right now, for why LA will not get a new team, is because of the "other" teams that are already there.

In an attention starved city, adding another sport to attempt to follow seems to be too much for the people of LA. Aside from the "fact" that most Angeleans are already Raiders or Chargers or Niners fans, you've also got the Lakers who are perennially at the top of basketball, second to them are the Clippers, and the Kings in hockey. But, during Football season, the biggest draw has historically, always been USC and UCLA. I honestly think that the way the city is, it is a much, much better college town than pro football town.

I know that there CAN be a balance between a city and it's college and pro football teams, but I rarely see it. Seattle is definitely a Pro town (as the Huskies are laughable most years), Louisiana, until very recently has always been college territory with LSU (still is in Baton Rouge, but in New Orleans it's definitely Saints country). The Boston/ greater New England area are Patriots, again since college teams haven't been good in a while. You get the idea.

 JB wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Far East Americans?

Och, that's going to cause a row!

My view after two visits to London in the last twelve months is that the number of Americans and English there is small compared to the number of non-English speaking people. Of course, I was probably in the wrong sections of town to hear the Queen's English.

Nah, that's about right. London really isn't representative of British towns and cities. It's definitely worth a visit, but I'd recommend venturing further afield if you want a true flavour of what England is like. Go up north, basically. You've got Manchester, Liverpool, the Lake District (and Cumbria in general), Durham, Yorkshire - all of which are nicer places than London.

Sucks to LA, they took our lakers and they don't even have lakes. At least change the name, jerks.

And my vote is for the London Imperials.

I like the London Spitfires.

 Pacific wrote:
Not to support a league, but last week's game was an 85,000 seat sell-out at Wembley which is just too much for the NFL commissioners not to take notice.
And the tickets sold out fast too, I bought mine pretty much as soon as they went on sale and still ended up miles up towards the top of the stadium!

That is an impressive showing for sure, but there is a big difference between people going to a one-off game and lasting support game after game, season after season.

There was an effort here in the 90s to bring a Rugby League team to Perth. They had exhibition matches between teams from other cities, and they got great crowds. Then they set up the Western Reds, and got crowds that at times were just a few hundred people.

Setting up a Rugby Union side has been more successful, but the support and attendance at exhibition matches was huge, and since then the Western Force have been surviving on modest crowds and generous corporate sponsorship.

London is, obviously, a much, much bigger city, so there's limits to how far my example goes. All I'm saying is that attendance for a one-off event can be very misleading when it comes to long term support.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
No no thats not how NFL corporate welfare works. The "owner" says build me a stadium have all rights to it. The public pays for it through bonds. The owner and the NFL say how much economic benefit it is, and if you don't do it they'll have to move the team. IN five years they move the team anyway to another sucker city er target market. Its like the F1 race.
Oh wow, reading it they even mention including F1 races. Add in a nice plant from Dell or some other manufacturer with no taxes for 20 years and you have the unholy trifecta of the queens of corporate welfare.

This is basically how it works.

Probably the only bit to add is that the 'economic benefit' is almost always transparently stupid, but people believe it because they want to have a football team in their city.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think the reasons people have used are somewhat unfair.... The period that the Rams and Raiders were in LA, they were both mediocre to bad teams, with few years of exception. The biggest reason that I can think of right now, for why LA will not get a new team, is because of the "other" teams that are already there.

In an attention starved city, adding another sport to attempt to follow seems to be too much for the people of LA. Aside from the "fact" that most Angeleans are already Raiders or Chargers or Niners fans, you've also got the Lakers who are perennially at the top of basketball, second to them are the Clippers, and the Kings in hockey. But, during Football season, the biggest draw has historically, always been USC and UCLA. I honestly think that the way the city is, it is a much, much better college town than pro football town.

I know that there CAN be a balance between a city and it's college and pro football teams, but I rarely see it. Seattle is definitely a Pro town (as the Huskies are laughable most years), Louisiana, until very recently has always been college territory with LSU (still is in Baton Rouge, but in New Orleans it's definitely Saints country). The Boston/ greater New England area are Patriots, again since college teams haven't been good in a while. You get the idea.

Interesting, thanks for that.

Are the Raiders based out of Oakland again. If that's the case, it'd be pretty easy to continue supporting that team from LA, wouldn't it? I mean, it isn't a short distance but its hardly out of the question as a road trip a couple of time a year.

Man... I'd be all over a Rugby league in the states...

Those games can get quite epic...

I would not mind seeing an NFL team or two across the pond.

They could be called:

The London Blackbirds.

The London chimney sweepers.

The London Crows.

The London Hedgehogs.

The London Black Adders.

The London Newts.

The London Abbeys.

The London Commodores.

That is enough for now.

 whembly wrote:
Man... I'd be all over a Rugby league in the states...

Those games can get quite epic...

While there's not many (if any at all) professional leagues, I've been doing the google search thing for rugby clubs in cities that I am looking to move to after I'm out of the army, and they are everywhere, if you are interested in playing anyhow.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Man... I'd be all over a Rugby league in the states...

Those games can get quite epic...

While there's not many (if any at all) professional leagues, I've been doing the google search thing for rugby clubs in cities that I am looking to move to after I'm out of the army, and they are everywhere, if you are interested in playing anyhow.

Me "playing"?

Aw hell naw... I'd be in jail! I'd know if someone crotch grabbed me, picked me up and slammed me down... I'd go enraged hulk-mode! Ain't nobody stopping me then... (which, I'm sure it's illegal in rugby now... at least, I think...)

 whembly wrote:
Man... I'd be all over a Rugby league in the states...

Those games can get quite epic...

Man, Rugby League is the worst. Run with the ball, bump into someone. Do that over and over again, until you've counted to five, then kick the ball. Watch the opposition do the same. I mean, it's like if you took the passing and speed of play out of American Football, so all you're left with is the counting.


Now, Rugby Union, that's a good game. Australian Rules Football is a great game. And a good game of American Football is great fun.

But my god League sucks.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Man... I'd be all over a Rugby league in the states...

Those games can get quite epic...

Man, Rugby League is the worst. Run with the ball, bump into someone. Do that over and over again, until you've counted to five, then kick the ball. Watch the opposition do the same. I mean, it's like if you took the passing and speed of play out of American Football, so all you're left with is the counting.


Now, Rugby Union, that's a good game. Australian Rules Football is a great game. And a good game of American Football is great fun.

But my god League sucks.

"Rugby Union"? ****runs off to wiki/google/youtube....

And yeah, American football is great... 'specially college American football!

 whembly wrote:
"Rugby Union"? ****runs off to wiki/google/youtube....

League is the one where they keep doing the same thing over and over again and you want to stab your eyeballs out to make the boring go away.

Union is the one where you have no idea why anyone is doing anything, but it's completely engrossing.

And yeah, American football is great... 'specially college American football!

It's very good. I mean, I don't think I can ever love a sport that keeps stopping because it takes so much initiative and invention away from the players. But as a spectacle, seeing athletes who have been highly specialised in a couple of very specific tasks it is an amazing thing.

Right, Union is the less popular one where they stop the game every five seconds. That would suit Americans more than League. Wouldn't want them stabbing there eyes out because they keep doing the same thing, playing rugby, over and over again without slamming the brakes on any flow every ten seconds.

 Glorioski wrote:
Right, Union is the less popular one where they stop the game every five seconds. .

Thats Rugby league

No. League is far more popular in Australia and outside of the six nations the super league draws far more crowds than union in the UK. In Rugby League you pass the ball under your feet when you go to ground. In union they just pile on top and hump each other for five minutes while the commentator tries to guess where the ball is.

Union is way better than League

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
So maybe West Ham have taken too long to make a proper move for the Olympic Stadium, as it appears the NFL are now interested.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/american-football-nfl-shock-new-contender-olympic-stadium-095315579.html


As a gridiron fan, this is great news as far as I'm concerned and it would answer the main question I had whenever the idea of a London based NFL team was raised, where would they play.

And does that means a probability that Superbowl matches may be hosted in London. ?

 Lone Cat wrote:

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
So maybe West Ham have taken too long to make a proper move for the Olympic Stadium, as it appears the NFL are now interested.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/american-football-nfl-shock-new-contender-olympic-stadium-095315579.html


As a gridiron fan, this is great news as far as I'm concerned and it would answer the main question I had whenever the idea of a London based NFL team was raised, where would they play.

And does that means a probability that Superbowl matches may be hosted in London. ?

nah, the league isn't letting some of the more northern stadiums host it yet, so London wouldn't get it, in addition to it being really far away for both sets of fans

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
nah, the league isn't letting some of the more northern stadiums host it yet, so London wouldn't get it, in addition to it being really far away for both sets of fans

Do any of the fans even have passports?

I have a passport, but I wouldn't go to England to watch American Football. I'd rather watch a Premiere League game in person over there. You guys really get into it.

I would not travel to London to see the Superbowl. That's not a knock on the city, which I visited twice this year. The best part of watching the game are the ads on TV. I also want a clean route to reasonably priced drinks and snacks when the game turns into a snoozer. That is best accomplished by watching the game at home.