NFL UK Forums - View Single Post - Bengals / Rams 6th October
View Single Post
  #7  
Old 09.04.2019, 09:38 AM
kaldenavn kaldenavn is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 17.10.2008
Posts: 584
Default

The Mexico City games have all been in week 11, which is probably another reason why London ones have not played that late: to keep them separate. Admittedly in the first two years the teams did not have subsequent bye weeks, although both times Oakland had theirs the week before. However the byes were scheduled straight after last year, so maybe the teams collectively still want to have that option even if some decline to take it.

The travel burdens on the season of Buffalo moving a home game by 60 air miles or a two-hour drive to Toronto, well…

I agree a franchise would be at Tottenham and not Wembley, but that had obviously not been an option until now so England games has always been an issue with scheduling later in the season. And as their first time in a new venue they will want to keep things simple this year so they can learn from the experience before trying anything new.

As for the weather, I did say "perceived risk" quite deliberately! Back in the early days I had an argument with a journalist on a blog where he cited rain statistics as a reason against a London franchise. Nothing would sway him, not even pointing out historic weather that showed very few days with even drizzle at 6m on Sundays between September and December, nor my actual experience of living here. The perception is that rains almost constantly is not an uncommon one with Americans.

But if you think they are not really considering a franchise, why do you think they are playing games that do, and always will, lose the league money? The profitability of the games and associated benefits are outweighed by the added costs of playing them. NFL owners are not people known for throwing away money for small benefits (development benefits from NFL Europe) let alone for nothing.

And the opening of a new stadium this year, into which the league invested for its own permanent dedicated NFL facilities, and a separate field, does not move a franchise closer?

The lack of a suitable venue was a major logistical problem. Wembley not only being arguably too large, but having to work around scheduling conflicts and the constant construction and removal of temporary facilities such as locker rooms.

To me a suitable home stadium is far more important to making a franchise viable than playing a random game in December.
Reply With Quote