(06-04-2018, 08:53 AM)JagsorDie Wrote:

(06-03-2018, 04:41 AM)DarloJAG84 Wrote: My biggest concern regarding this thread is that it was suggested as though Fulham are a Champions League team..

Lol. Watch Fulham go Leicester city 2015 on the league this year.

(06-03-2018, 08:24 AM)DarloJAG84 Wrote: Looking through the list of kickoff times in Eastern Time Vs UK time:

1pm = 6pm UK
4.05pm = 9.05pm UK
4.25pm = 9.25pm UK
7.10pm = 12.10am UK
8.20pm = 1.20am UK
10.20pm = 3.20am UK

Say for example an (unnamed) NFL franchise decided to move to the UK and became successful on the field, surely the NFL would want them to play primetime games? With the locality of Wembley Stadium and the length of the games, this would mean they would be unable to play a HOME game in London based upon primetime US times.. I mean, there are few direct trains to the Wembley/Brent area from outside of London. I know, travelling from the south, that I would have to travel to Central London then on to Wembley which is the best part of an hour on top of the commute to London itself. Sure, you can drive, but I know I wouldn't want to pay the £20-30 to park for EVERY home game.. nor would I want to pay the £30+ to get the train to EVERY home game when you take into account the cost of season tickets too..

The timings are the same reason for why Wembley logistically can't host a Super Bowl. Kick off time is usually, what? 8pm (ish) ET?.. That would be 1am UK time. To my knowledge, Wembley has a noise curfew of 10.30pm. This would mean that any game being held at Wembley would result in a Kick Off time of 6pm UK time "just in case" at the latest.. This would be 1pm ET and 10am PST.. I'm not too sure the Western based fans would be too keen on watching Super Bowl Sunday over breakfast?

If you combine these facts with the last DIRECT trains out of Central London on Sunday's being sporadic, this means that fans attending games would be inclined to pay for hotel rooms which are inflated when there's an "event" in London.

So not only do the NFL have substantial logistical stumbling blocks from the team moving.. but they also have them with any potential team arriving.

Lastly. Wembley is the National Stadium. White Hart Lane is Tottenham Hotspur's Stadium. Suggesting that an NFL Franchise can just move into either on a permanent basis is not really feasible. Especially with the fact that the NFL season coincides with the soccer season over here. If a franchise moved over here and requested having their own stadium/training facilities etc, where would they find the room in London for that? Would that mean a further move for that franchise outside of the Greater London area. These are questions that would require exceptionally good answers for the idea to become a reality.

After the hangover I had from the last Super Bowl party I attended last year, breakfast super bowl doesn't  sound soo bad. As for the logistic feats you are talking, you can't let these facts get in the way of a good smear narrative. Of course is seems next to impossible to have term like Seattle or the three teams in cali travel 8 thousand miles to play a game in a durasticly different time zone. Or the simple fact that any division this London franchise would be apart of would have 5x the travel of any other NFL divisional team just over the course of the divisional season. I personally think that a permanent team in London would end up struggling after 1 season. I think fans will crowd a stadium for 3-4 games a year  especially when you get a variety of match ups from different teams. but doing it for a 8 game stretch every year? Not mention the realistic probably that they could get a terrible team that goes on a decade long sub.500 stretch. Do you really think they are going to pack wembly to see their home team get slaughtered by double digits from every opponent they face? Sure it looks good on paper a supplemental form of income, 1 game a year for a small market team. But I think there are a few variable being left out when people talk about a permanent move.

I think the only thing that hasn't helped our team is our own marketing department. Yes, they built a lot here and have made it known they have  plans for expansion around the stadium. But I can't help but think they dropped the ball on reassuring the local everyday fan that there is no possible way we move. I mean they did have a 10 min segment of our "state of the franchise" devoted solely to London crap. Then our owner buys one of the biggest grounds in London and does little(actually nothing) to shoot down rumors that are bound to swirl after the purchase.  I don't think it is intended, but they do leave the conspiracy theorists a bit of ammunition.

(06-04-2018, 06:03 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: Finally, someone has figured it all out. JUNGLE CAT for president (while there’s still time to hold national elections, of course).

Lmbo. My thoughts exactly.

Well exactly..

Also, Shad hasn't actually bought Wembley.. He's shown interest in buying Wembley. I believe that the FA aren't keen on the sale, and rightly so.. it's the national stadium.

The thing is, the facts stated in my post alone would be enough stumbling blocks to stop a permanent move or expansion team.. when you add in the distances needed to be travelled, that creates more issues. But you're absolutely right, why let facts get in the way of a good story.

---