Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Big John

Rams will be "host" of annual London game

34 posts in this topic

This does not have the people in St. Louis happy at all. (Especially the people who bought the "personal seat licenses" that are required to buy season tickets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand. My first thought when I heard about next year's match-up was to hope that the Pats weren't the ones to give up a home game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just the first step of their eventual move to L.A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its kinda good for Rams fans. While they lose the attractive home game against the Pats/Brady next year (probably one of the very games they'd come close to selling out), they don't have to pay for a full 8-games of sub-.500 football. They can still hold onto their season tickets at a lower basis, and allow them to pay less during these tough years until the team is good enough to compete in a few years. I bet there weren't many Rams season-ticket holders that were super-psyched to have shelled out $70+ for each seat to see the Rams/Cardinals, or Rams/Seahawks games this year.

 

To me, it would kind of a bonus to only have to buy 7 home games worth of tickets to a marginal team....and get to keep my PSL for when they are truly competitive. I can say as an Eagles season ticket holder....knowing I paid $280 for the meaningless Week 17 home game versus the Redskins kinda sucked. I can't imagine that feeling as early as October.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think its kinda good for Rams fans. While they lose the attractive home game against the Pats/Brady next year (probably one of the very games they'd come close to selling out), they don't have to pay for a full 8-games of sub-.500 football. They can still hold onto their season tickets at a lower basis, and allow them to pay less during these tough years until the team is good enough to compete in a few years. I bet there weren't many Rams season-ticket holders that were super-psyched to have shelled out $70+ for each seat to see the Rams/Cardinals, or Rams/Seahawks games this year.

 

To me, it would kind of a bonus to only have to buy 7 home games worth of tickets to a marginal team....and get to keep my PSL for when they are truly competitive. I can say as an Eagles season ticket holder....knowing I paid $280 for the meaningless Week 17 home game versus the Redskins kinda sucked. I can't imagine that feeling as early as October.

Something about this is funny to me. Are their fans supposed to be grateful that this turd of a franchise will play one fewer home game that they mercifully won't need to attend? I'd love to see ownership try to sell this move on that basis. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting development, I was not aware that the NFL was looking for a team to commit to any consecutive set of games in London. I know that they are having trouble finding teams to volunteer losing a home game each year. Bills are out since they're already committed to holding one of their "home" games in Toronto each year for some period. Other popular teams that sell out all the time don't want to lose a home game.

 

As far as swammi's point about "not having to pay for one more home game when the team sucks" well sure that may be nice, but most season ticket holders would just prefer they not have to pay for two meaningless pre-season games every year as part of their season tickets. Losing an attractive game against a top opponent (Pats) is not as good IMHO. The following two years it will likely be another AFC team that they play, and probably a team that is well known (e.g. PIT). The London games need to have at least one popular team.

 

I still dislike the whole idea of the league holding games in London every year with some larger goal to have more games outside the US or even a team outside the US. What the Bills are doing is ok, because that is their choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be pissed if the Colts did this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Something about this is funny to me. Are their fans supposed to be grateful that this turd of a franchise will play one fewer home game that they mercifully won't need to attend? I'd love to see ownership try to sell this move on that basis. :wacko:

 

It is kinda funny, but its pretty much the reality. Maybe its different in St. Louis, but here in Philly, the waiting list for Eagles season tickets is something ridiculous like 40,000+. It takes years and years to finally get a chance to buy them. So when you do have them, you hand them down from generation to generation (I got my four from my dad about 10 years ago when he got a little past his prime to endure the long Sundays tailgaiting/watching the game outdoors/etc.)...you never let them go.

 

We endure many years during the Marion Campbell era where the team was dreadful...we still went to the games (since we had tickets and frankly, couldn't sell them for the paper they were printed on)....it would have been a blessing if ownership came to us and said you only have to endure 7 games this year, not 8..and most importantly, well let the Brits pay for 12% of the price for you to retain your season ticket for when we are good. :tup:

 

The Rams might be in the same spot for the next couple seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What the Bills are doing is ok, because that is their choice.

 

You don't think the Rams aren't making this choice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What the Bills are doing is ok, because that is their choice.

 

The owner of the Rams also owns Arsenal FC, one of London's biggest football teams.

 

As someone who lives in Britain, I'm not convinced this is a good idea. I can understand the NFL wanting to expand its market, but I don't believe a team could ever settle here permanently, and that the once a year nature of these games if giving a false impression. Surely there are several key places near the US that could host teams first without a trans-Atlantic flight? I'd be interested to see how the viewing figures for the NFL have changed in the UK since they started this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd be interested to see how the viewing figures for the NFL have changed in the UK since they started this.

 

I have two nephews in Wales, and they love for American football...by no influence of mine. They have been drawn to the game over the years, and now are as fanatical as I about watching...and they need to stay up well into the night to watch the games. They also each have fantasy football leagues with the friends....and my one nephew plays for the Swansea University team.

 

it has become pretty mainstream amongst the 16-25 set. I don't blame the NFL for wanting to explore furthering the game there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i actually feel bad for our brothers in London who are starving to see a good NFL game each year and they have the rams for next 3 of them :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what Fisher thinks about it. Signs on and then loses 1 home game a year for 3 years. He had to know about it before he signed on, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/ram...-years-15402471

 

Rams agreed to be the home team in the next 3 years of the London game.

Kinda weird to have the same team three years in a row. Not convinced the casual British NFL fans are going to be too thrilled about getting three years of what they all know is a sub-standard NFL team regardless of the opponent. It'll probably still sell out though as it's considered a major event at Wembley and tickets usually go pretty quick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another example of Kroenke showing that he doesn't give a rat's ass about what the fans think of how he runs the team. The rumors of a move to LA, now the rumors of a move to London, and he does nothing to try and appease the fans. It's simple, really. If the city of St. Louis and the deep pocket guys come up with a good enough plan to fix up the stadium, he will stay. If not, he will most certainly go. He has plenty of fan support here, he just doesn't care. He will go wherever he can make the most money, period. He has no connection to or affection for this city or its fans. This London deal is just the latest of a long line of examples of this. The fans are PISSED! This move is all about looking good to his London buddies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't think the Rams aren't making this choice?

 

I suppose they may be, but the NFL has made the initial choice/decision to have regular season games in London every year. Sure I guess the owners in general agree to this, or the league wouldn't do it.

 

The whole thing just seems strange to me, as I never read/heard that the NFL was looking for somebody to take consecutive games in London. Maybe there is some additional monetary benefit involved.

 

As I said already, I think the NFL trying to expand this way is a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet another example of Kroenke showing that he doesn't give a rat's ass about what the fans think of how he runs the team. The rumors of a move to LA, now the rumors of a move to London, and he does nothing to try and appease the fans. It's simple, really. If the city of St. Louis and the deep pocket guys come up with a good enough plan to fix up the stadium, he will stay. If not, he will most certainly go. He has plenty of fan support here, he just doesn't care. He will go wherever he can make the most money, period. He has no connection to or affection for this city or its fans. This London deal is just the latest of a long line of examples of this. The fans are PISSED! This move is all about looking good to his London buddies.

 

Isn't he an owner of an IFL team as well as the Rams? I can see an Apple connection here if you look deep enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose they may be, but the NFL has made the initial choice/decision to have regular season games in London every year. Sure I guess the owners in general agree to this, or the league wouldn't do it.

 

The whole thing just seems strange to me, as I never read/heard that the NFL was looking for somebody to take consecutive games in London. Maybe there is some additional monetary benefit involved.

 

As I said already, I think the NFL trying to expand this way is a bad idea.

 

I've been over there twice during these weekends, and it's a pretty big deal. I imagine the idea of a "regular" team over there is a brain child of the Lerner's, the Kroenke's, and the Glazer's of the league, and probably not something that came from Goddell. Most of the other teams are probably cool with not losing the home game, or having to deal with the travel prospects and logistics of having a mid-season overseas trip that isn't a "regular" work week style game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i actually feel bad for our brothers in London who are starving to see a good NFL game each year and they have the rams for next 3 of them :wacko:

 

If it was the Rams and the Saints it would probably be a good game! :tup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been over there twice during these weekends, and it's a pretty big deal. I imagine the idea of a "regular" team over there is a brain child of the Lerner's, the Kroenke's, and the Glazer's of the league, and probably not something that came from Goddell. Most of the other teams are probably cool with not losing the home game, or having to deal with the travel prospects and logistics of having a mid-season overseas trip that isn't a "regular" work week style game.

 

I was reading somewhere else that part of the reason to have the same team for a few years is to see if that will create some fan support/following for that team over that period. That makes some sense, and of course that team is not going to be one of the top draws like the Pats, Cowboys, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apple just won the rights to stream IFL games. Its a multi billion dollar deal. Kroenke owns an IFL team as well as the Rams. Do the math.

 

Oh...and Kroenke put a bid on the LA Dodgers. :wacko:

Edited by tazinib1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apple just won the rights to stream IFL games. Its a multi billion dollar deal. Kroenke owns an IFL team as well as the Rams. Do the math.

 

Oh...and Kroenke put a bid on the LA Dodgers. :wacko:

 

What is IFL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I meant the English Premier League. Not sure why I always call it the IFL. Anyways...yes the largest share holder of the Premier League Arsenals.

 

He also owns the NBA Nuggets, NHL Avalanche, AFL Colorado Crush, MLS Colorado Rapids and Lacrosse Colorado Mammoth for good measure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.