Krafts want to own more teams, NFL to invade Europe

[FreeTedWilliams]

If the Krafts want to own another sports franchise. Can I sugguest the Boston Bruins!!!!

 

[PatsFanInVa]

It fell out of the sky because it ran into debris that had fallen off a DC-10 on the runway during takeoff and a tire blew up. It was not due to any inherent safety risk of the plane itself. The Concorde was considered the safest plane in the world until the DC-10 caused that crash. It was used as an excuse to fool dum dums to bring its demise. I guess it worked.

Definitely the proximate cause, from what I read here:

Air France Flight 4590 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A titanium strip cut a tire. A lot of previous Concorde tires had previous issues, but you are right, there was a titanium strip from a DC-10 involved.

Not too sure how that counters the fact that the Concorde became a pretty unpopular choice after the disaster. As the wiki summary points out, that was followed up in short order by the drop in interest in air travel in general following 9/11.

The point I made above, all hate for "moonbats" and the like aside, is that air travel has always been a marginal business even at the mid-range. The Concorde positioned itself at the top of the pyramid -- pretty much marketing to the crowd that will be able to afford air travel in general going forward. We won't be able to afford subsidies forever, and the industry can only "consolidate" itself into so many efficiencies. New equipment can offset some of the impact of rising fuel costs, but only to a point.

Of course, if we think jet fuel will cost about the same going forward, the air travel industry is likely to be much more affordable than I think it will be.

My conclusion is that a Europe branch of the NFL would be a perfectly good "anchor" for another Concorde, if the rest of the flights could be arranged at the right price. But in the absence of a Concorde, I could see a "Way East" (not to be confused with "Far East") division able to be stitched into each conference, with twists to the present scheduling regime; obviously, they'd have to concentrate on Europe-on-Europe violence for the most part, and save the trips over the water for dates around the bye weeks.

PFnV

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Anyway, let's have some lighthearted fun with European team names.

How about:

The Paris Petites
The Hamburg Buns
Or
The Frankfurt Buns
The Madrid Matadors (That one is a gimmee)
The Rome Bishops (We already have a Cardinals in the NFL)
The Vienna Waltzes
The Warsaw GhettoBusters (That might be a little over the top)

Your turn...............

How about

The Lyon D'etroits
The Werewolves of London
The Leghorn Foghorns (now Livorno but work w/me)
The Berlin Wall
The Corinthian Leather
The Brussel Sprouts
The Southampton Titanics
And of course...
The French Kiss (uniforms illustrated below)

 

[Triumph]

In September 2005, Henri Perrier, the former head of the Concorde division at Aérospatiale, and Jacques Herubel, the Concorde chief engineer, came under investigation for negligence: a report stated that the company had more than 70 incidents involving Concorde tyres between 1979 and 2000, but had failed to take appropriate steps based upon these incidents.

In November 1981, the American NTSB sent a letter of concern, which included safety recommendations for the Concorde, to the French BEA. This communiqué was the result of the NTSB's investigations of four Air France Concorde incidents, during a 20 month period, from July 1979, through February 1981. The NTSB described those incidents as "potentially catastrophic", because they were caused by blown tyres during take-off. The NTSB also expressed concern about the lack of adequate remedies, on the part of the French, as well as improper crew responses to those incidents.



Sounds like a real safe plane.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590#cite_note-33

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Yeah, all I was trying to say is the "moonbats" didn't kill concorde. They complained about sonic booms in the early days, but what killed the plane was a combo pack of safety concerns and the air industry collapse after 9/11. It was extremely cool that you could go over the pond on a tolerable schedule, but it turned out that it just wasn't profitable to run, and the venture couldn't absorb a couple of shocks in rapid succession.

 

[pherein]

I don't know I think the kraft's would be one of the better Owners we could have to represent American Football in Europe. We kind of need somebody there that has a proven track record or professionalism.
I mean can you imagine Jerry Jones going over there 1st. It would be a 3 ring circus and never taken seriously as a sport.
Thou seems to make more sense for the NFL to concentrate on our hemisphere first, until another concord is built, that can make it to Europe in and hour. Might be a little wiser, and less risky.

 

[gomezcat]

The main reason it's a bad idea:

Do they expect fans of the sport who already follow teams to just drop them and start supporting the new teams?

Sorry Roger but I wouldn't stop supporting the Pats, especially for a London team.

Very much agree with this. I live in London, but am not about to switch allegiances.

 

[gomezcat]

Because other than the one game played in London each season, Europeans will not fill the stadiums as they do for the other sports. And even then, the majority of the fans in Wembley are Americans that flew over to support their home team.

It just wont happen.

Most people who go to Wembley are Brits. Having said that, is the NFL going to get us to attend 8 home games a year, at extortionate prices, for a team we don't *actually* support? Er, nope.

I think the NFL is confusing the increased popularity of Football in the UK (which is definitely happening) with the viability of a Franchise. Everyone who likes Football in this country is already a fan of an NFL team and we're not about to drop it for a London franchise.

I'd like the NFL to put money into developing young British players and increasing the talent pool that way. More money to develop the game at HS level, in the British leagues etc strike me as having real potential to pay off in 10 to 20 years' time.

 

[italian pat patriot]

loving football and, while living in Europe, I have the distinct feeling that a possible fixed franchise in Europe would not have success - so hard to think you can replace soccer so popular in our continent...so hard to think thet for every home game the stadium would be sold out...as I love the NFL I think they are sufficient only a couple of games a year in Europe - perhaps putting a rotation playing not only in England but playing also in Italy (Milan or Rome), France, Germany, etc.

but football is an American sport, probably THE American sport so I would prefer to remain it only in the US

 

[lurker1965]

NFL has no shot against soccer, rugby and cricket.

Name a country with other sports where soccer does not take a back seat. No, I'm not counting cricket as a sport, but Pakistan and India hold it over soccer.

 

[gomezcat]

Name a country with other sports where soccer does not take a back seat. No, I'm not counting cricket as a sport, but Pakistan and India hold it over soccer.

The only ones I can think of are New Zealand (Rugby Union) and Australia (Aussie Rules, League, Union and possibly cricket), and they are very much exceptions to the rule. I disagree that cricket isn't a sport, but that's a whole different thread...

 

[Big-T]

The only ones I can think of are New Zealand (Rugby Union) and Australia (Aussie Rules, League, Union and possibly cricket), and they are very much exceptions to the rule. I disagree that cricket isn't a sport, but that's a whole different thread...

All the south sea islands like Fiji etc are all Rugby League/Union countries too.

 

[UK_Pat37]

I hate the way they talk about NFL expansion to Europe being an inevitability. And within 10 years no less. I'd think Los Angeles and Canada would make more sense.

How many franchises have they lost now. Three? I can see them getting another one (even though there's no market for the NFL out there) and hopefully they won't mess it up for a fourth time.

I think a franchise in Europe in the long run would be great for the sport. I've seen a lot of Americans complain but I don't personally see the harm in making it more of a global brand.

 

[Wolfpack]

I think a franchise in Europe in the long run would be great for the sport. I've seen a lot of Americans complain but I don't personally see the harm in making it more of a global brand.

There might be some initial excitement but I doubt there would be much long term interest in a team which, in a good year, came in at 4-12.

 

[pork3]

I hate the way they talk about NFL expansion to Europe being an inevitability. And within 10 years no less. I'd think Los Angeles and Canada would make more sense.

I've lived in Central and Western Canada, and hockey will always be their one and true love (for whatever reason). They've tried to get basketball going in Vancouver, and the support was tepid to say the least, which is why the Grizzlies moved down south.

In the maritimes provinces though, I was surprised by the amount of fanfare for the New England Patriots.

And I'm curious how the CFL would feel towards the NFL's incursion into their territory. Maybe the CFL could turn into the developmental league for the NFL.

Cheers.

-Jamman

 

[Mystery Pats Fan]

How many franchises have they lost now. Three? I can see them getting another one (even though there's no market for the NFL out there) and hopefully they won't mess it up for a fourth time.

I think a franchise in Europe in the long run would be great for the sport. I've seen a lot of Americans complain but I don't personally see the harm in making it more of a global brand.

You Pats fans in the UK are some of the best fans I have ever met, knowledgeable and of course very very hard core. However, that being said, I see absolutely no reason for the NFL to expand to Europe. If they want to add teams in Europe, then do as they did before and call it something else, like the InterNATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, OR NFL EUROPA.....

There is no justifiable reason to follow one failure (WFL) with another one.

One or two games a season for NFL teams to cross the pond should be sufficient. Play one at Wembley and the other at another GB Venue.

 

[gomezcat]

All the south sea islands like Fiji etc are all Rugby League/Union countries too.

D'uh- of course!

 

[Why?PJ]

Being an inevitability does not mean it will happen next year. Heck the NFL has repeatedly said they are happy with 32 teams and have no interest in expanding any time soon.

Oh, and the CFL isn't really compatible. At one point the CFL tried having American franchises, and it failed big time. It would probably happen the same way if the NFL tried a bunch of franchises in canada.

Maybe 1 in canada and 7 spread out among the cities that should have an NFL franchise but don't. Vegas, LA, maybe biloxi or nearby, or just go down the list of top tv markets.

I do agree the second the average flight time to London hits 3 or 4 hours there will be an NFL franchise there. Maybe 5 hours. Boston to Seattle must take forever.

 

[Mystery Pats Fan]

I've lived in Central and Western Canada, and hockey will always be their one and true love (for whatever reason). They've tried to get basketball going in Vancouver, and the support was tepid to say the least, which is why the Grizzlies moved down south.

In the maritimes provinces though, I was surprised by the amount of fanfare for the New England Patriots.

And I'm curious how the CFL would feel towards the NFL's incursion into their territory. Maybe the CFL could turn into the developmental league for the NFL.

Cheers.

-Jamman

I think the CFL would be pissed. Several years ago (1994-95- the CFL expanded into several US cities, some even in the south, and the NFL was pissed.

Baltimore, Shreveport, Memphis, Birmingham, Las Vegas, San Antonio.

 

[Mystery Pats Fan]

Boston to Seattle must take forever.

I think that Miami to Seattle must be the longest flight in the NFL. Boston to San Diego might be close.

Here are the mileages according to a mileage guide I use.

Boston to San Diego
Straight line: 2,423 Miles (As the crow flies)
Drive Miles: 3,043 Miles
(That is an amazing difference, but I double checked it and it is correct. So, apparently it would be good if you were a crow)


Miami to Seattle:
Straight Line: 3.041 miles (As the crow flies)
Drive Miles: 3,356 Miles

Boston To London
Straight Miles: 3,753 Miles
Drive Time: Very, very wet.

San Diego to London:
Straight Line: 6,547 Miles
Drive to Boston and Fly to London:
Drive Portion: 3.073 Miles
Fly Portion: 3,753 Miles
Total: 6,823 Miles

Note: San Diego to London would be shorter if they used Atlanta as the changing point from drive to fly.

The travel time would, for all intents and purposes exclude any west coast teams from making the trip. Midwestern teams would probably be too long, also.

And, that is just to London. of course travel to other cities, Paris, Berlin, Rome, etc would be a hell of a lot longer.


Even with all of that, count on Goodell to push the idea. Friggin dumbarse. he needs to be cut loose.