Pats maybe not going to London after all?

[Wolfpack]

Florio linked an interesting article which says the city of St. Louis claims the Rams are contractually obligated to play all their home games in St. Louis, so they are trying to stop the Rams from playing a home game in London.

My fear is that despite what the article says, Bob Kraft (being the company man he is and all) would accept adjusting the schedule to make it the same two teams, but as a Patriots home game.

St. Louis Rams must play all home games at Dome, commission says

 

[shmessy]

Here's the "escape clause" - - from the linked article:


"Wednesday is the deadline for the CVC to present the Rams with a detailed plan for improving the Dome — to satisfy the lease's requirement that it be a "first tier" stadium, or one that's in the top 25 percent of all National Football League venues."

The Rams can simply say - - nope, you're plan is not enough.

 

[Ron Sellers]

Florio linked an interesting article which says the city of St. Louis claims the Rams are contractually obligated to play all their home games in St. Louis, so they are trying to stop the Rams from playing a home game in London.

My fear is that despite what the article says, Bob Kraft (being the company man he is and all) would accept adjusting the schedule to make it the same two teams, but as a Patriots home game.

St. Louis Rams must play all home games at Dome, commission says

Aside from the escape clause that Shmessy pointed out, I don't follow your reasoning. It's not as simple as calling it a Pats home game. You would have to adjust not just the Pats and Rams schedule, but that of all the teams they play, and all the games those teams play, etc. The NFL schedule is on a very specific schedule rotation which provides for teams to visit other teams in their conference once every six years and out of conference teams once every eight years; I can't see that changing to fix this situation for St. Louis. There are far simpler solutions than changing the entire NFL schedule.

Financially it makes sense for teams that have trouble selling out to play a home game in London, so teams like the Jaguars, Bucs and others are probably more than willing to play a home game there. There is no need for Kraft to volunteer that the Patriots play a home game in London; it is not as if nobody else is willing to do so. If indeed the Rams can't go then some other team will step in and take their place.

 

[shmessy]

Aside from the escape clause that Shmessy pointed out, I don't follow your reasoning. It's not as simple as calling it a Pats home game. You would have to adjust not just the Pats and Rams schedule, but that of all the teams they play, and all the games those teams play, etc. The NFL schedule is on a very specific schedule rotation which provides for teams to visit other teams in their conference once every six years and out of conference teams once every eight years; I can't see that changing to fix this situation for St. Louis. There are far simpler solutions than changing the entire NFL schedule.

Financially it makes sense for teams that have trouble selling out to play a home game in London, so teams like the Jaguars, Bucs and others are probably more than willing to play a home game there. There is no need for Kraft to volunteer that the Patriots play a home game in London; it is not as if nobody else is willing to do so. If indeed the Rams can't go then some other team will step in and take their place.

Patriots at St Louis would be a sellout.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Patriots at St Louis would be a sellout.

If the owner of Foxboro Stadium had accepted a $75 million lease buyout back in '94 the St. Louis Stallions might be going to the Super Bowl with the relocated New England Rams heading to London.

 

[Wolfpack]

Here's the "escape clause" - - from the linked article:


"Wednesday is the deadline for the CVC to present the Rams with a detailed plan for improving the Dome — to satisfy the lease's requirement that it be a "first tier" stadium, or one that's in the top 25 percent of all National Football League venues."

The Rams can simply say - - nope, you're plan is not enough.

Yes, after the 2014 season, the Rams can trigger an escape clause to get out of the lease. I'm not sure how that affects next year though.

 

[Ron Sellers]

Patriots at St Louis would be a sellout.

I'm not sure of the process but I don't get the feeling that a team gets to say 'we'll play in London, but only if it is one of these games and not one of those games'. If that was the case Tampa Bay would have done the same thing when they played the Patriots.

Regardless, if the Rams cannot get out of scheduling a home game in London the point remains that there are far simpler solutions than revamping the entire NFL schedule.

 

[Wolfpack]

Aside from the escape clause that Shmessy pointed out

I don't see how an escape clause that triggers in February of 2015 impacts this situation.

I don't follow your reasoning. It's not as simple as calling it a Pats home game. You would have to adjust not just the Pats and Rams schedule, but that of all the teams they play, and all the games those teams play, etc.

The schedule hasn't been made yet. It would be very easy to say to the Rams their game against Buffalo is now a home game and the one against NE is a road game. Then you tell the Niners that their game against Buffalo is a road game and their game against NE is home. So boom, you've solved the problem and only impacted 2 other teams.

The NFL schedule is on a very specific schedule rotation which provides for teams to visit other teams in their conference once every six years and out of conference teams once every eight years; I can't see that changing to fix this situation for St. Louis. There are far simpler solutions than changing the entire NFL schedule.

The league has changed their "set schedule" before. It really is nowhere near as complicated as you're suggesting.

Financially it makes sense for teams that have trouble selling out to play a home game in London, so teams like the Jaguars, Bucs and others are probably more than willing to play a home game there. There is no need for Kraft to volunteer that the Patriots play a home game in London; it is not as if nobody else is willing to do so. If indeed the Rams can't go then some other team will step in and take their place.

Well the Rams can go, they just apparently can't go as the home team. My theory is they'll find another matchup from the Rams road schedule and the Pats won't be going. But the above nightmare is certainly in the realm of possibility.

 

[Wolfpack]

I'm not sure of the process but I don't get the feeling that a team gets to say 'we'll play in London, but only if it is one of these games and not one of those games'. If that was the case Tampa Bay would have done the same thing when they played the Patriots.

Regardless, if the Rams cannot get out of scheduling a home game in London the point remains that there are far simpler solutions than revamping the entire NFL schedule.

There really is very little difficulty in revamping something which hasn't been made yet. The league has done it before where they've deviated from their set rotation. All you'd need to do is shift around the AFC East versus NFC South schedules. As I mentioned in another post, you could solve the problem if you wanted to by using no more then 2 other teams. I hardly consider shifting only two games for only 2 other teams "revamping the entire NFL schedule."

 

[Ron Sellers]

There really is very little difficulty in revamping something which hasn't been made yet. The league has done it before where they've deviated from their set rotation. All you'd need to do is shift around the AFC East versus NFC South schedules. As I mentioned in another post, you could solve the problem if you wanted to by using no more then 2 other teams. I hardly consider shifting only two games for only 2 other teams "revamping the entire NFL schedule."

Okay, then why the assumption that no other team would be willing to play in London and that Kraft would be forced into volunteering the Pats play a home game there?

 

[Wolfpack]

Just as a follow up, Florio now has an article saying the Rams are telling the city of St. Louis that a London game would be great for St. Louis (as if that makes any sense).

So, since they've apparently gone into negotiating/begging mode, it seems they realize they don't have a legal leg to stand on.

 

[Wolfpack]

Okay, then why the assumption that no other team would be willing to play in London and that Kraft would be forced into volunteering the Pats play a home game there?

Where am I making that assumption? I haven't assumed anything in this thread (other than the fact that the city's claim about the contract is valid). All I've done is discuss possibilities which will be impacting the Patriots one way or another. My belief, as reflected in the title of this thread, is the Patriots won't be going to London. But that certainly isn't the only possible solution to this situation.

 

[Ron Sellers]

Where am I making that assumption? I haven't assumed anything in this thread (other than the fact that the city's claim about the contract is valid). All I've done is discuss possibilities which will be impacting the Patriots one way or another. My belief, as reflected in the title of this thread, is the Patriots won't be going to London. But that certainly isn't the only possible solution to this situation.

From the original post:

My fear is that despite what the article says, Bob Kraft (being the company man he is and all) would accept adjusting the schedule to make it the same two teams, but as a Patriots home game.​

Okay, rather than the word assume, how about theory? Why the theory that this is going to happen?

It just seems to me that it is a rather big leap from the possibility that the Rams may not be able to play a home game in London, to that resulting in the Pats playing a home game there. There are other alternatives that in my opinion are far more likely should the Rams be bound to playing all of their home games in St. Louis.

 

[Wolfpack]

From the original post:

My fear is that despite what the article says, Bob Kraft (being the company man he is and all) would accept adjusting the schedule to make it the same two teams, but as a Patriots home game.​

Okay, rather than the word assume, how about theory? Why the theory that this is going to happen?

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I don't have a "theory that this is going to happen". My theory is that the Pats won't be going to London. All I have done is submit this switching-home games as a possibility.. As I mentioned in my first post, Bob Kraft is a company man so I don't see it as being completely outside the realm of possibility that he agrees to take one for the team.

There are other alternatives that in my opinion are far more likely should the Rams be bound to playing all of their home games in St. Louis.

I agree 100%. I'm just not at the point yet where I'm ruling anything out.

 

[Sfpat]

From the original post:

My fear is that despite what the article says, Bob Kraft (being the company man he is and all) would accept adjusting the schedule to make it the same two teams, but as a Patriots home game.​

Okay, rather than the word assume, how about theory? Why the theory that this is going to happen?

It just seems to me that it is a rather big leap from the possibility that the Rams may not be able to play a home game in London, to that resulting in the Pats playing a home game there. There are other alternatives that in my opinion are far more likely should the Rams be bound to playing all of their home games in St. Louis.

I'm OK with that as long as the Pats keep their other 8 home games

 

[pwes]

There is no way Bob is giving up a home game. If the NFL somehow was able to give the Pats 9 'home' games then yeah but he is not giving up one of the 8. One of the provisions he agreed to to play in London was that the Patriots would not lose any home games.

 

[Wolfpack]

There is no way Bob is giving up a home game. If the NFL somehow was able to give the Pats 9 'home' games then yeah but he is not giving up one of the 8. One of the provisions he agreed to to play in London was that the Patriots would not lose any home games.

Where did he say that? Obviously it has worked out that way so far, but I don't remember Kraft ever saying he would refuse to give up a home game. In fact, while I can't find the quote, I do remember him saying a couple years ago that every team should be willing to take a bite out of the **** sandwich in order to do something that benefits the league as a whole - although he may not have exactly phrased it quite that way.