Login

StLucieBengal · 10-06-2015, 02:45 PM

Was curious to see how everyone felt about their teams playing over there...

I thought I saw where mike brown had the lease changed a while back, I would imagine it's so the bengals could play over there at some point.

Fans down here aren't crazy about it but there are more and more trips of fans that actually go to London especially if it's supposed to be a home game here.

***jason*** · 10-06-2015, 02:55 PM

(10-06-2015, 02:45 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Was curious to see how everyone felt about their teams playing over there...

I thought I saw where mike brown had the lease changed a while back, I would imagine it's so the bengals could play over there at some point.

Fans down here aren't crazy about it but there are more and more trips of fans that actually go to London especially if it's supposed to be a home game here.

I'm totally against it... Keep sending the Dolphins and Jags.

**XenoMorph** · 10-06-2015, 02:58 PM

(10-06-2015, 02:55 PM)jason Wrote: I'm totally against it... Keep sending the Dolphins and Jags.

eventually if the NFL wants a franchise there they will have to send better.

I wouldnt really mind the bengals playing a game there as long as it wasnt one of our home games.

I just dont see London as anything more than a novelty really the jet lag for teams visiting and then what the hell is a london team gonna do if they have some back to back games in the states?

i think before the nfl gets a team there they need to have a few more options in europe.

**ItsOdellThurman** · 10-06-2015, 03:20 PM

It's a logistics nightmare to have a single team over there. There's a reason it hasn't happened. The sport can become uber popular and the market could far outweigh some of the current NFL markets, and there won't be a full-time team over there.

Hell, there STILL isn't a team in Los Angeles...yet we're talking about a team in Europe?

I guarantee you would get draftees, free agents, coaches, etc...refusing to sign and/or play there. Unless the money and benefits are far greater, they are willing to compensate me more for the travel time and hassle.

fredtoast · 10-06-2015, 04:00 PM

Won't happen until they have at least 4 European teams. That would allow them to play 8 home games and 3 road games without having to travel to the United States. Also keeps US teams from having to travel there every week.

Personally I see Mexico city as a more viable option. The NFL used to play a game there every year. don't know why they stopped.

***Bengal Dude*** · 10-06-2015, 04:42 PM

(10-06-2015, 03:20 PM)ItsOdellThurman Wrote: It's a logistics nightmare to have a single team over there. There's a reason it hasn't happened. The sport can become uber popular and the market could far outweigh some of the current NFL markets, and there won't be a full-time team over there.

Hell, there STILL isn't a team in Los Angeles...yet we're talking about a team in Europe?

I guarantee you would get draftees, free agents, coaches, etc...refusing to sign and/or play there. Unless the money and benefits are far greater, they are willing to compensate me more for the travel time and hassle.

Whit has said that he wouldn't play for a team in London.

***jason*** · 10-06-2015, 09:58 PM

(10-06-2015, 04:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Won't happen until they have at least 4 European teams. That would allow them to play 8 home games and 3 road games without having to travel to the United States. Also keeps US teams from having to travel there every week.

Personally I see Mexico city as a more viable option. The NFL used to play a game there every year. don't know why they stopped.

I can see the free agents lining up to sign there already.

fredtoast · 10-07-2015, 12:03 AM

(10-06-2015, 09:58 PM)jason Wrote: I can see the free agents lining up to sign there already.

I am sure most players would rather stay in the U.S., but Mexico City has upscale neighborhoods better than Cincinnati.

**InTheJungleNow9** · 10-07-2015, 12:16 AM

London games start at 6:30 for me so my vote is no. 10 AM is early enough.

StLucieBengal · 10-07-2015, 03:40 AM

(10-07-2015, 12:03 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I am sure most players would rather stay in the U.S., but Mexico City has upscale neighborhoods better than Cincinnati.

Yeah I'm sure players will want to move their families to that hell hole . Better chances to be abducted there.

**J24** · 10-07-2015, 04:19 AM

I thinks its BS that it takes away a home game from a team; especially a division game to me that is just Ludacris . However I am a big proponent of making the game more global and playing a regular season game over seas does help the game. This is one of the big reasons why I am for expanding the regular season by one game. So that teams wouldn't have to lose a home game to play in London or in any other country.

**Tiger Teeth** · 10-07-2015, 09:32 AM

(10-07-2015, 03:40 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yeah I'm sure players will want to move their families to that hell hole . Better chances to be abducted there.

Not to mention the friendly drug cartels. I say keep the league in our own country, period. Could you imagine a CFL team in the US? :snark:

fredtoast · 10-07-2015, 10:41 AM

(10-07-2015, 04:19 AM)J24 Wrote: I thinks its BS that it takes away a home game from a team; especially a division game to me that is just Ludacris .

It is ridiculous.

if the NFL absolutely has to play in London then the easy answer is to have 2 teams play there every week for 16 weeks. every team makes one trip there a year. Every team loses one home game every other year.

I don't think we need to be playing regular season games over there at all, but if we have to then something should be done to make it more fair.

fredtoast · 10-07-2015, 10:42 AM

(10-07-2015, 03:40 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yeah I'm sure players will want to move their families to that hell hole . Better chances to be abducted there.

Many players never move their families to the city where they play.

**CKwi88** · 10-07-2015, 11:46 AM

I agree that a full time team in Mexico or Canada makes a lot more sense than a London based team.

If the NFL keeps up with a serious(ish) Pro-Bowl, maybe they should take it to different international locations every year. Added international exposure, and players get an added international vacation.

StLucieBengal · 10-07-2015, 12:41 PM

(10-07-2015, 10:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Many players never move their families to the city where they play.

True but it's quite different when it's another country.

StLucieBengal · 10-07-2015, 12:44 PM

well if we play in London then I will probably try and make that trip.

**Donnyho** · 10-07-2015, 02:22 PM

(10-07-2015, 09:32 AM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: Could you imagine a CFL team in the US? :snark:

.........yes

**Donnyho** · 10-07-2015, 02:26 PM

(10-07-2015, 12:44 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: well if we play in London then I will probably try and make that trip.

My wife wants them to play in London every year. We went over about 5 years ago and loved it, so she's always looking for a reason to go back. So if they did. I'd try to go.

***jason*** · 10-07-2015, 06:14 PM

They went through all the effort to get the divisions (and schedules) evened out. Adding a team in London (or anywhere else for that matter) completely messes that up.

If it must be a foreign city, then I think Vancouver would be great.... They could be called the Orcas. I can see the all black helmets with the white oval & angry whale eye on either side.

The Mexico City Banditos?... I could also get with that.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me