Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

For some reason, the Rams are playing the 49ers during the 2018 season in China.


nctarheel0619

Recommended Posts

There's a burgeoning market of young 20-somethings in China with a lot of money to throw around and not nearly as much disdain for Western culture as their parents.  The NFL looks at that and their jaw hangs open, drooling while their eyes turn into big green dollar signs.

While the logistics of actually expanding into China would be beyond nightmarish (they'd almost certainly have to create a different league), it would be negligent for the NFL to not even test the waters to see if there's an interest in the product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably considered a home game for the Rams and something they had to agree to do as part of the approval to move to LA. 

There's a HUGE Chinese community in SF so I wouldn't be surprised to learn they are the most popular team in China. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, ctrcat said:

I hope the Olympics go off without major incident and the Panthers finally take their swing at the international series if/when the Brazil hosting rumors finally happen.

I don't think I would go to Brazil at the moment. Not sure how Zika would impact that possibility either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CPcavedweller said:

I don't think I would go to Brazil at the moment. Not sure how Zika would impact that possibility either. 

The United States is now actually on the warning list of international travel destinations.  If the Olympics can be pulled off without unmitigated disaster, it's back to game on in Brazil, eventually.  We'll see in about 8 weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ctrcat said:

The United States is now actually on the warning list of international travel destinations.  If the Olympics can be pulled off without unmitigated disaster, it's back to game on in Brazil, eventually.  We'll see in about 8 weeks.

I'm not concerned about a warning list put out by governments or traveling to a metro area to be gunned down by some crazies, i'm talking about mosquitos man. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CPcavedweller said:

I'm not concerned about a warning list put out by governments or traveling to a metro area to be gunned down by some crazies, i'm talking about mosquitos man. 

Yes and if the many thousands going there next month live normal lives and have normal babies going forward as will likely be the case, that will and should make/break the litmus test of concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...