London Rams?

Today we saw the announcement that the St Louis Rams are to play the New England Patriots at Wembley in October followed by two more international series games in 2013 and 2014.

Is this the first step towards having/ moving a franchise to this side of the Atlantic? Especially with the Rams owner being Stan Kroenke who is a major share holder in Arsenal.

What do people feel about the Rams playing three 'home' games in the London over the next three years and the possibility of maybe see the Rams move to London, maybe as early as 2015?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/20/the-london-rams-nfl-annoucement-st-louis_n_1218720.html?ref=uk

The NFL had one of its VPs (forgot his name though he's English) on the Dan Patrick Show today and he downplayed the Rams eventually moving to London, but that doesn't mean anything. They probably wouldn't want the Rams fans freaking out anymore than the currently are. Plus if this doesn't go as well as they hoped, they can damage control saying "Well, we never actually tried to move a team over -- that's just talk."

He says they asked teams which one would like to make this commitment and of the teams that volunteered, the Rams put forth the best case as to why they should be allowed the opportunity to advance their brand across the Pond. He did say that they would like to see a London franchise at some point.

I don't know if this is a precursor to the Rams moving, but their lease is up in 2014 so it gets you thinking. Could also be a mini-test to see if a team can gain any traction in the U.K. market before they move ahead with more concrete plans at a later date.

The DP show had an informal poll and 80% of the respondents were against moving a U.S. team over to London. They were wondering if it was just a cultural reluctance to let someone else have access to "our game" or whether people were just afraid it might be their team that goes.

I definitely think these games are testing the water and the Stan Kroenke connections are more than just coincidence.

Whether the Rams to London permanently or not though, I do think they will be on the move soon, probably back to Los Angeles.

Whilst I would love to see an NFL London franchise, its at least too soon, if not logistically unlikely in less than 5 years.

Besides, 1 game at Wembley each year is a damned sight easier to arrange than 10 (inc. current pre-season arrangements) between August and January. If not Wembley, then where else could host a game needing c. 60K+ consistently to be sustainable?

Looks like they are testing the water
Can't see UK being able to sustain 8-10 games per season
I would be happier if we had say 2 home games a year as part of a franchise

I will probably pay the same amount of attention to the Rams as I did before, if I can will go to the London games but wouldn't even be able to support them as a second team really, as they are in the same division as the 49ers.

Wouldn't mind seeing another team commit similarly, say someone like the Buccs, 1 home game a year for the next 3 years, giving us 2 identifiable teams to go with and 2 games a year

I will be going to the game as I haven't missed one yet and don't intend on doing so.

That said i'm not wildly keen on this "long" (I know its only 3 years) commitment to the Rams. I think the UK benefits from having a mix of teams each year and a matchup designed to be appealing to the UK audience. We are now locked into the Rams no matter how good or bad and also limited into their home schedule for the following two years.

Im rather glad that Jeff Fisher picked them now... I know he has never been that amazing as a coach, but he is a solid team builder that rarely puts out a bad football side even if they aren't normally world beaters. Much better than having a rookie HC coming in and risking another failed rebuilding program like Spags seemingly had all played out on the hallowed turf of Wembley.

I tend to agree with crazy_dave that having the Rams play at Wembley for three consecutive seasons maybe detriment.

I am sure the Patriots & Tom Brady will be a huge draw next year, especially if they win the Super Bowl, but I can see people getting bored/ losing interest in the international series if the same team is playing every year. I thought the idea was to have different teams come so fans of all teams got a chance to see their team play.

When push comes to shove, the game just isn't popular enough over here yet. There's no way that they'll sell out 8 games per season.

Pr4wn wrote:When push comes to shove, the game just isn't popular enough over here yet. There's no way that they'll sell out 8 games per season.

Totally agreed... my previous comment mentioned how I don't intend on missing the IS in it's current form, however if we had a team there is no way I could go to 8 games a year as the trip is highly inconvenient on a Sunday.

I was reading an article on the Tampa Bay Buccaneers over the weekend that stated, after them playing at Wembley twice in the the past few years, it was thought they were in prime position for a Rams style deal.

The article then stated that the Glazier's had rethought their strategy and decided to concentrate more on the Bucs local fan base rather than gaining more international support.

I also read that the Rams would be free to leave San Diego after the 2012 season.

Now the Wembley games maybe a worthwhile 'experiment' to gauge the support for a possible franchise in London but the above makes me think that the London games are part of a strategy to wind down support in San Diego before the Rams move back to Los Angeles for the start of the 2015 season.

NFL MIKE wrote:I also read that the Rams would be free to leave San Diego after the 2012 season.

Now the Wembley games maybe a worthwhile 'experiment' to gauge the support for a possible franchise in London but the above makes me think that the London games are part of a strategy to wind down support in San Diego before the Rams move back to Los Angeles for the start of the 2015 season.

Errr, the San Diego Rams?

Don't know if they are winding down support, given they've been pretty crappy since Kurt Warner left. This is probably more about raising their profile, period. I'd say if LA wins the NFL back, it will be more likely be an expansion franchise and before 2015.

skins4ever wrote:Errr, the San Diego Rams?

Yep! Watch out for them... The San Diego Rams are going all the way to the Super Bowl next year

NFL MIKE wrote:

skins4ever wrote:Errr, the San Diego Rams?

Yep! Watch out for them... The San Diego Rams are going all the way to the Super Bowl next year

Those San Diego Rams are a shoo in for the playoffs every offseason :p

I'm certainly not coming down from Leeds 8 times a season. Even if it was to watch the Patriots rather than the Rams.

I've never been to the Wembley game, shameful really living in London, but I've always been waiting on the Raiders. I think I'll go this year if I can get tickets though.

If the Rams or anyone else were to become a London franchise, I'd consider attendance. But I don't know if they could ever be more than my second team, having already made my commitment!

I wonder whether the NFL have considered this? A lot of Brits will already have allegiances to teams and probably won't want to switch, even to a British franchise...

I was thinking about a UK based team and wondered if a franchise would be better playing 8 'home' games around the British Isles rather than 8 games at Wembley (or possibly the Rams at the 60,000 seater Emirates).

Something like:-
Murrayfield (67,800) or Hampden Park (52,103)
St James Park (52,387)
Croke Park (82,300) or Lansdown Road (51,700)
Anfield (45,276)
Old Trafford (75,957)
Villa Park (42,788) or Ricoh Arena (32,609)
Millennium Stadium (74,500)
Wembley (90,000)

A conversation with a fellow NFL fan in the office had me thinking about the logistics a bit deeper and a UK/London franchise may not be so far fetched. As he pointed out, logistically if the team were allowed to set their schedule up to play their away games in batches (2-3 back to back for instance) and/or work these around their bye week, they could have a base in the US while playing these games and reduce the traveling etc. As with the WFL, if teams were based in the US for their whole preseason and stayed there pretty much right up to the start of the season, even playing all preseason games in or around the US (i.e. Canada and Mexico), then it would probably go down a lot better with the players than being more permanently based in the UK.

sodhat wrote:
If the Rams or anyone else were to become a London franchise, I'd consider attendance. But I don't know if they could ever be more than my second team, having already made my commitment!

I wonder whether the NFL have considered this? A lot of Brits will already have allegiances to teams and probably won't want to switch, even to a British franchise...

Yep, they had an NFL VP on the radio the other day (a Brit by the way) who mentioned that most British NFL fans already had established loyalty to an existing NFL team.

We had that problem in Arizona when the Cardinals moved here. For donkey's years, the Cowboys were the defacto team -- previous to the Cardinals appearance all of Dallas' games were televised in Arizona and they had a considerable fan base here, so much so that even after the Cardinals moved here, the stadium would be full of Cowboys jerseys when they came to town (which was once a season when we were still in the NFC East). Actually, with Phoenix being such a transient city, the only time the stadium would sell out was when a popular team played here and all their fans showed up. The Cardinals were just an afterthought. It's only been in the past few years that things have turned around and it took ownership finally willing to spend $$ to field a good team.

I've previously mentioned that playing games at different UK venues would be one way of putting bums in seats and keeping things fresh (assuming you could find enough stadiums suitable for American Football). I also believe they'd have to play their games in blocks and have a U.S. base for away games.

One thing that might hinder the whole show is taxes. Not sure how the tax situation would work, but if U.S. players on a London team had to pay significantly higher British taxes on their earnings, there will be much complaining from the union. I think that was an issue for players who played on the Toronto Raptors in the NBA.

NFL MIKE - Average NFL attendance in 2011 was nearly 67,500. Whilst there may be pricing/cost differences in the UK, I can't see sufficient revenue being generated from less than 60K seat stadiums.

Mangler - As you say, interest may be increased by up front investment, and Kroenke has Arsenal to tie in with, so its a possibility that current allegiances could be overcome. As time goes by, new (young) fans would adopt the team as their own so in due course that issue would probably go away.

As to tax, if they are based in the US and only play here during the season (and therefore much less than 50% of the year), surely they can't be taxed locally? The team could probably be taxed on local revenue, but as a lot of the revenue in the NFL comes from the TV deals and these are with US based companies, much of that revenue will never see a British bank account, so probably can't be taxed by the UK?

Interesting stuff that I can't find any reference to in UK NFL media...

The owners or the Edward Jones Dome are querying whether the Rams moving the games to London is in breach of their lease.A section of the lease calls for the team "to play all its home NFL Games (other than pre-season NFL Games) at the Facilities."

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/st-louis-rams-must-play-all-home-games-at-dome/article_94108892-4928-11e1-a0da-001a4bcf6878.html

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/58303/great-another-rams-stadium-lease-story

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/58310/back-at-ya-rams-respond-on-london

I can't see them signing up for the London deal without covering this off with the lease? Maybe they have an out because of the stadium negotiations?

Rams are pulling out of the 2013 and 2014 International Series games.

"ST. LOUIS -- The St. Louis Rams are dropping plans to play home games in London in 2013 and 2014, citing a need to focus on negotiations on their lease and ease fan discontent.

The Rams said Monday that they will play the New England Patriots at Wembley Stadium on Oct. 28 while withdrawing their commitment for home games in London the following two seasons.

"We want to grow globally, but we need to make sure we're on solid footing first here in St. Louis," said Kevin Demoff, chief operating officer, at a news conference.

"While this was something that we believe in and we continue to believe in, this was just not the right timing for the organization and for our fans."

Demoff said season ticket sales have not suffered during an impasse with the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Bureau. But he said the decision should ease worries they might move after the 2014 season.

"I think the general perception is that if you're playing in London, you're not looking right now for an absolute solution, you're giving yourself an out," Demoff said. "We don't want that perception out there whatsoever."

The dome is owned by the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Bureau and leased to the Rams for home games. The lease agreement signed when the team moved to St. Louis in 1994 allows for periodic evaluations of whether it is among the top 25 per cent of all the NFL's 31 stadiums (the New York Jets and Giants share a stadium).

The bureau and the Rams have been negotiating over improvements since at least January. Unless a deal is worked out, the Rams could break the lease and potentially leave St. Louis after the 2014 season.

"We're committed to working with the city to find a first-tier solution," Demoff said. "We have said we need our actions to speak louder than our words, and this action today should show St. Louis we care about getting this right."

The Rams said they worked closely with the NFL in deciding to drop the London games. NFL Vice-President of International Chris Parsons said the league was working to add another game for 2013 "in response to the growth in popularity of our sport. We hope to finalize these plans in the months ahead."

NFL owners have agreed to play regular-season games in the United Kingdom for the next five seasons and Commissioner Roger Goodell has repeatedly spoken of the possibility of a full-time franchise there one day.

The NFL first played at Wembley in 2007, with the New York Giants beating the Miami Dolphins 13-10. Since then, seven other teams have visited, with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers making the trip twice.

The Rams and the bureau are at odds about what needs to be done, and how much it would cost to get the 18-year-old dome that was built with taxpayer money to first-tier status.

The agreement to play "home" games in London each of the next three seasons had been met with some scorn in St. Louis since that would have provided for just seven regular-season games in St. Louis each of those seasons.

The CVC privately proposed to the Rams a modest $48 million plan in January that would have been publicly funded. When that was rejected, the CVC in February announced a plan for $124 million in improvements that included better amenities and a massive new scoreboard.

It would have required to Rams to pay for $64 million of the cost. Voter approval in St. Louis city and St. Louis County would have been required for the rest.

The Rams countered with a much more elaborate plan calling for a new roof with a sliding panel, replacing much of the brick exterior with a glass front, even re-routing a nearby street.

The Rams did not provide a cost estimate but mayoral aide Jeff Rainford said the team's plan would cost about $700 million and the dome, which also hosts conventions, would have to be closed for renovation for up to three years, potentially costing the city $500 million in revenue.

The Rams were 2-14 last season, tied for the worst in the NFL with Indianapolis, and are 15-65 over the past five seasons. They lost their preseason opener to the Colts 38-3 on Sunday in the debut of coach Jeff Fisher."
http://www.tsn.ca/nfl/story/?id=403025

As long as the International Series survives (and I believe it will) I'm not to fussed about the specifics of this.
There not the most wonderful team at the moment and it just allows for more flexibility in terms of next year and beyond

I agree with that Dave if anything it's potentially better for the Series, 3 years in a row of the Rams would make me think attendances could potentially fall seeing as they're really not in the best of shape currently having just gone 2-14 though the draft picks could improve them for the 2014 game. Plus like the article mentions it's not a great time for the franchise I can imagine people in St Louis seeing it as a plan to get out of the city.

Do though feel sorry for anybody who may have put off going this year planning to go next year.

It all depends who they get in to replace the Rams. If they can get two good teams both years, they will be fine. But if they bring Jacksonville over for 2 years, it may not be great.

Great news! No offence to the Rams, but I can probably think of 25 teams I would rather watch

I read somewhere that the Los Angeles Rams didn't want two of their games in London. That maybe mischief though.

LA RAMS?

Bit of a flash back there.

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nfl/larams/larams.html

A lot of people think its likely that the St Louis Rams are moving back to LA soon HERSH,

As an aside, has anyone heard about the Vikings possibly taking over the 2 London games in 2013 and 2014