A lot of people don't realize that Anaheim is almost as close to San Diego as it is to LA. If you are in LA, getting to Anaheim is a trek.
Logistically, I just don't understand how a team in London will work. Unfair disadvantage for road teams playing in London and unfair disadvantage for London team playing road games. They'd have to do consecutive road games in the US each time and find somewhere to stay/practice between games. Heck yeah it is. I have a cousin that lives in Culver City (actually works for the NFL there). When I'm in Anaheim for business (which is often), he will come to see me...but kind of complains about it. It's about a 1-1/2 hour drive...which is only slightly shorter than going from Anaheim to SD.
The logistics for the London team could work - you'd have to extend bye weeks a bit. The London team could do 4 games at home / 4 away / 4 at home / 4 away to minimize travel. The road teams could always have a bye week before or after their London game. I think the bigger issue is competitive balance. I'm not sure if free agents would be as willing to sign there, simply because it's so far from families/friends/etc. Except for people who really want to live in London, it seems like a huge problem for that team. You see it in NBA with Toronto to some extent, and that's not even far away.
That's because LA is HUGE. Its like going from the Clear Lake area to the Woodlands (only further). Putting a stadium in downtown LA, near the Staples/LA Live complex would be an instant success... to the point that people will wonder what the hell took so long.
The main issue is where the team would practice/live for the season. If they're on their 4 away game stretch.... if they're choosing to practice/live in London, that's still a lot of travel for them. And if they're not choosing to practice/live in London, I'm not so sure how much of a real connection the city and the team can have. I guess when they're on their 4 game "home" stretch, they'd have to have some sort of permanent facilities in the UK. It would be pretty disjointed from that respect. I think a team commuting weekly out of London would be at a disadvantage.
I live in the Clear Lake area. The Woodlands is 50 miles away. LA to Anaheim is about 35 miles. It is comparable, but it isn't further.
It is a city which lost two football teams tho. It is a fairweather city. Most Clipper fans did not even exist 5 years ago. Look at NY, there is a lot to do there but they have strong fanbases for 2 football teams, 2 baseball teams and 2 basketball teams
Once again, the revenue model is different now. LA, by its media market alone, could sustain a team with league-worst attendance. The Clippers are a perfect example of this. They sucked balls for 30 years and had miserable crowds, but Donald Sterling made money hand over fist regardless. LA has had really funky relationships with its NFL owners and been put in some bad situations, much like Houston was. They will get a team, possibly even 2, in the next 5 years.
As somebody who just got back from Anaheim and flew into LAX, I agree. I was staying in Anaheim and went into LA 3 times while I was there. Each time it was no less than 1.5 hours to get there.
I disagree on Anaheim to LA/San Diego DISTANCE SD to Anaheim is twice the distance easily more than LA to Anaheim. (Its part how MLB Angels are Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, because its close enough in proximity) In actual COMMUTE TIME, yes it can be closer to equal in time on road with the LA over-congested traffic. And SD having (most the time) a clearer road to and from. (I just went from Anaheim to downtown LA a couple days ago)
Talking about commute time.... although going from Clear Lake to Woodlands during rush hour traffic would take about the same time as going from LA to Anaheim.
Downtown LA to Anaheim, 25 mi ~ 45-90 mins, depending on traffic Sherman Oaks (LA) to Anaheim, 40-45 mi ~ 1-2 hrs, depending on traffic San Diego to Anaheim, ~100 mi, 90 min drive or 2 hr train
I don't think a London team would commute to/from London weekly. Major's idea makes sense. The team would have a US headquarters, more than likely share facilities with another team (for example, Giants or Jets). The team could play 4 home, 4 away, 4 home, 4 away. Issues: 1) Identity - Most players would not want to live and train there in the offseason. OTAs, training camp, preseason games etc. would more than likely occur here. 2) Competitive disadvantage - Not only with free agents, but could a team win a Super Bowl by having no home field advantage? The "home" games would probably feel like exhibition events.
Exactly... and if they're playing 4 straight home games, that WOULD require a weekly commute to/from London. There's more to having a home game besides just the crowd behind you. Its spending the whole week sleeping in your own bed. Spending time with family. Getting into routines. Enjoying certain nightlife/restaraunts. Not having to get on/off a plane (let alone a 6-8 hour plane ride). Partaking in events and being involved in the community. The NFL can continue to put games in London... and may eventually get 8 regular season games there (which would represent the 8 "home" games). They would continue to make a lot of money and they'd continue to expand their brand overseas. I see that as a more realistic possibility instead of having an actual "team" there.
Whoa, that last stadium looks wild. Los Angeles has become the Seattle of the NFL, held hostage as leverage. I feel bad for Seattle in this regard, not so much for LA.
So, would both Farmers Field and the stadium in Inglewood be constructed if one of them breaks ground before the other?