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!

     

The London Chargers?

Raleigh PF

By Raleigh PF,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Raleigh PF Rising Star

Raleigh PF

Posted
Posted

The Chargers have been mentioned as a possibility to relocate to the UK. 

https://theathletic.com/1347540/?spurce=twitterhq

IF the NFL moves the Chargers, there would have to be a fairly massive realignment. They couldn't leave the Chargers in the AFC West - they would have to move to either the NFC East or AFC East. I could certainly see reasoning for bumping Miami and moving the Chargers to the AFC East. But then, what to do with Miami? The dominoes would continue to fall.

It *could* be possible that they move Miami to one of the south divisions, which could mean either Houston or New Orleans would then move to the AFC West to take the Chargers place. 

Outside of realignment, it's going to be quite the burden on teams west of the Mississippi to fit the Chargers into their away schedule. As much as there has been a disadvantage for teams traveling east, this would certain compound that issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted

Seriously here, how much effort did the league put into moving the Chargers to Los Angeles?

There was a whole monster fight over that move that our old owner was a big part of. And that was what, just two or three years ago.

Now they're talking about moving the whole damn team to London?

Somebody really needs to get their head out of their ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raleigh PF Rising Star

Raleigh PF

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It's all about the money. Goodell represents the owners who want to open a new market and this is their way to do it. As long as you ask yourself, how will this make the NFL more money, then you can figure out what their next moves are going to be. They are a pretty simple, petty lot, for the most part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jtm Rising Star

jtm

Posted
Posted

As much as I hate the idea, make no mistake London will have a team in the next couple of years.  NFL is all about $ and they clearly want to expand the brand overseas.  It wouldn't surprise me if they added two new expansion teams and put one in London and the other in Canada.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • TD alt
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By TD alt · Posted

      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.
    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      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.
    • jfra78
      Are all veterinarians this greedy ?

      By jfra78 · Posted

      Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...