Quote
waterfield
A lot of teams on the east coast today consider the east to west travel a "problem" but with 5 (6 if you count Az) teams on the west coast you won't find any of the owners complaining ($$$). With NFL interest apparently waning both in TV and attendance I'm not surprised at the interest in London. What bailed professional football out of the doldrums was the move to the west coast by the Rams in 1946 notwithstanding the travel difficulties presented. If there is sufficient interest in London the NFL will find a way to do it no matter the hardships. They've done it before. Keep in mind airline traffic continues to get faster and faster.
BTW: there is an excellent book written by James C. Sulecki titled "The Cleveland Rams-the NFL Champs Who Left Too Soon, 1936-1945". It chronicles the reasons why Reeves moved the Rams "all the way" to Los Angeles and how he had to fight the NFL over the very same issues raised herein. What's interesting is that the Rams had just won the NFL Championship and Reeves decided to move the Rams because he could not get what he wanted out of the old stadium ownership.
Here;s my own opinion of all this. I personally could care less what owners think. And I absolutely have no interest in or patience for the "expand the brand" routine. If games in London are a problem for players, then that's all I need to know.
Do I think when rich owners want something, even something that just has some kind of tinsel lure to it but nothing real and substantial, it is inevitable? No.
....
