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!

     

London 2018?


SuperBowlBound

Recommended Posts

The NFL normally announces the teams that are selected to go to London during December. We’re halfway through and still nothing. 

A report earlier this year said they want to get the remaining six teams that haven’t been over there.

Two questions, do we believe we are going and will the NFL take away a home game from us?

@RoaringRiot or @Jeremy Igo, any insight to this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SuperBowlBound said:

The NFL normally announces the teams that are selected to go to London during December. We’re halfway through and still nothing. 

A report earlier this year said they want to get the remaining six teams that haven’t been over there.

Two questions, do we believe we are going and will the NFL take away a home game from us?

@RoaringRiot or @Jeremy Igo, any insight to this?

Saw somewhere that they pushed this year's announcement to mid January. 

I'm already working on the tailgate spot for this game. It's going to be a banger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SuperBowlBound said:

That would be fantastic. I would not go to Philly but I’d definitely do London. 

I would only go to Philly because I lived there for three years and I would just go to the game with my friends up there. I'm not taking a group up there. I'm all set on that....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

Panthers at eagles would be a marquee game.  Couldn't see it wasted on London. 

They're two of the five teams (pretty sure it's 5) that haven't gone. But yes, this was my prediction before the season. Could certainly changed based on their 2017 performances. But I'm gonna ride it out ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

Panthers at eagles would be a marquee game.  Couldn't see it wasted on London. 

I don't think it's a waste to put any game in London. It's still televised here. One of the four games this year kicked off at 1pm EST, so I don't see why they couldn't put a potential marquee game over there. 

In fact, if they really want the game to be popular in the UK, they need to have meaningful football there, so I'd be supportive of any of our games being played in London. As long as it's not permanently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be a expensive trip. Looking at airfare between $1100 to  $1500 roundtrip. Hotels are around $200 to  $300 a night. If you leave out Friday night arrive Saturday morning and leaving Monday. You are looking at $2000 before even buying a ticket to the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...