TBH, that is actually probably a good thing for St. Louis.
Off topic, but I think the next expansion is international.
London or Mexico.
I have discussed this too. I don’t see how you can have an NFL franchise in London full time and make it work logistically.
There is also the issue of how the salary cap would work with the higher cost of living and higher taxes in the UK. IF the salary cap is the same for the London franchise, nobody will want to play there due to the financial hit they will take. They could make an adjustment for the London franchise, but that also opens the door for US franchises in locations with higher taxes and costs of living to ask for a similar provision to allow them to better compete with franchises in locales with lower taxes and lower costs of living.
Mexico City makes more sense logistically. I don’t know about the financial aspect, though I would bet the cost of living and taxes there are both a lot lower than the UK.
I think the pandemic put a big pause on these plans, so don’t expect anything for several years.
I recall listening to a sports radio show that had several scenarios of how to make it work.
But it was quite a while ago.
I recall two scenarios discussed, neither one of which works, in my opinion.
The first had the London team playing its games in groups of four alternating between home and the road (this before the 17th game was added). The team would essentially have two four-week road trips where they were totally away from home That would make for a big disadvantage during that time. Conversely, the team would have the pressure of doing well for its long home-stand to compensate for its very difficult road trip. This alone would not make the London franchise attractive for free agents.
The second scenario involved basing the team in the eastern US and having it fly into London for the games. That would mean that the team would essentially have all road games and would make even the Chargers’ situation with visiting teams’ fans taking over the stadium look ideal by comparison. Plus, if you are trying to build a following overseas, does it really help to have the team only there on game-day week-ends?
With that said, if the NFL thinks it can squeeze more money out of a London franchise, I can see them doing it. I just don’t think it makes sense. The current model of playing some individual games in London seems to be working well. They should stick with that.
100% agree.
The pandemic may have saved them from themselves.
I think ALL COSTS means ALL COSTS… the fact that all possible COSTS were not enumerated IMHO. is not a problem.
ALL COSTS is the Drive out Price.
It was understood that the Rams would cover the move.
How much has the League and other teams benefitted from the move… probably very little compared to the RAMS.
Just a side note, Sam Farmer is a very respected writer who, in my opinion, is pretty unbiased and factual. This was especially true during the years when there was no NFL team in Los Angeles but plenty of stories about teams that were considering moving there or stadiums that would be built. Some sports writers and more sports talk show hosts would let their biases affect what they wrote, but Farmer always kept it factual. You could always count on him to give a good alternate perspective to some other writer or talk show host who was celebrating the NFL’s imminent return to Los Angeles.
In fact, I recall once when Farmer was being interviewed on a national radio show when he said that he thought the Rams would end up striking a deal with St. Louis to stay there and that Los Angeles would still be without an NFL team. Granted that was before Kroenke had really amped up his efforts, but there were still plenty of people here talking about how the Rams would be coming back soon. They did not come back soon, though they did end up coming back later.
And somebody in St Louis is saying the NFL got off too easy.