Raiders on the move

QPR, Ipswich, Watford, Stoke and Bury to name a few.

 

I love NFL but this is ****ing ridiculous how they can up sticks like this.

 

You ****

 

I gave up on the NFL when my team was moved from St. Louis to LA by a bunch of gangsters. The figurehead is a guy named Roger Goodell, the NFL Commissioner. It's easy to spot when Roger is telling a lie as his lips are moving. But the real power brokers in the NFL are a small cadre of owners led by Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys. They care little about the long-term health of the league; they want big cash payouts wherever and however they can get them. They get them with the exorbitant relocation fees. NFL viewership was down significantly this past season, even with a team relocated into the 2nd largest TV market. As for me, I watched one NFL game all season, the Super Bowl. Screw Goodell and the NFL. I now spend my autumn Sunday afternoons enjoying the beautiful weather.

 

To be fair the Rams should never have been moved to St. Louis in the first place, St. Louis should have been given the new franchise instead of Jacksonville.

 

Has anyone told rugby league that they have moved away from franchising?

http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/20...rman-no-plans-to-sell-super-league-franchise/

 

I meant in this century, obviously.

 

No doubt he will quote that Newcastle United were the result of a merger between Newcastle West End and Newcastle East End, though this was a case of a club going bankrupt asking the other to take them over, and claim that as proof. Can't think of a merger between league clubs since the formation of the Football League.

 

Its exactly the same as Wimbledon moving to Milton Keynes. Football isn't and never was a franchise system yet they still moved the 'franchise' of Wimbledon for financial gain, exactly the same thing is happening at Wakefield.

 

Why this century? How much time has to pass before a merged club becomes a legitimate club in your eyes?

 

They merged to get into the leagues, just like in other sports.

 

No they didn't.

 

Very true. And that debacle is a whole 'nuther story.

 

Both St Louis and Oakland have had an NFL team move out twice now, so they've both probably learnt that the NFL are mercenaries who will move on whenever they think they can.

The merger topic brought in isn't relevant to most NFL issues, in those cases it's teams moving wholesale to a new city, keeping everything the same except for the location and the name in front of their nickname. As if to pretend that nothing much has changed they keep the same franchise name, jerseys, logos, website etc.

 

Ridiculous comparison to the merger, or rather takeover of Hull FC by Gateshead. All the clubs mentioned weren't in the main football clubs merging, they were cricket or sports clubs merging with a football club All of them before they were in the football league. There hasn't been any cases of clubs in the league merging as happened with FC. Theve2uicalent,mat least in FC fans eyes of Liverpool or Man Utd merging with a club fromm100 miles away.

 

Barcahulla has also answered your post above.
You were trying to pass off Gateshead Thunder moving their franchise to Hull FC as an every day event by inferring that there are clubs in the Premier League and the EFL who have done likewise.
They haven't. The only football club I know who have done something similar in modern times are MK Dons and they are ridiculed for it in the football world.
That is why I asked the question.
Hull FC were actually wound up as a business so the 1885 or whatever it is and the recent 150 year anniversary celebrations they held were false. They ceased to exist and were trading under the name of 'Gateshead Thunder trading as Hull FC for the first twelve months of the takeover.
It's like the Basil Fawlty sketch with the German tourists 'Don't mention the war'
When everyone knows it is true.

 

Imagine hull city afc moved to dover


Why would it stop us supporting the team?
It's just moved location, same kit same team same club