So I guess the awesome canopy wasn't enough???

 

So the bye-week follows the London game, right? Too early, but I guess the Jags have it even worse. The NFL should be forcing other teams to take a London "home" game. Sending Jacksonville every year is NOT helping the NFL cause in Europe.

 

Jacksonville is doing this voluntarily.. each year till 2020. There's talk of the NFL wanting to have a team in London earliest 2021. Owner of the Jags owns Fulham F.C. And weak teams are often candidates for relocation.

Who knows.. this could be a prelude to an NFL team called the London Jaguars (not bad.. though I'd prefer London Redcoats.. haha imagine them vs. the NE Patriots).

 

the london jagoffs, fits the slang

the london jagoffs fits the local slang

 

Totally understand that fans who attend home games will be aghast at this, and I respect that. But from a purely selfish standpoint this is great news for me as it's the good ladies birthday on the Saturday. So, it's a weekend in the smoke for us, she can have the Saturday; nice hotel, shopping, see a show and a top meal out, (maybe a club if I get her on the wine lol) then my day Sunday; all about tailgate and Dolphins football!
There's thousands of dolphins fans in the UK, we have been spoilt with visits recently but we are very grateful and the support is strong, listen out for us.

 

Yeah, the home games are all voluntary, several teams have said they will never give up a home game, which I actually agree with, that's giving up a competitive advantage, Jerry J being quite vocal about it.

As far as relocation, it may be a long time before that ever takes place, and that 2021 date that the NFL gave out is actually not attainable as the CBA won't be done until 2022, they can't move a team without the CBA's approval.

That is probably the biggest obstacle among some big obstacles, many believe that the players union will never agree, at least not in the foreseeable future, because there are a ton of problems with that, the biggest being that players don't want to have to move out of country.

Another huge obstacle is competitive disadvantage, which is one of the reasons they may never get enough owners to agree either, WC to London trip? lol, brutal, now they get a bye after so it's not so bad, but if there is a team in London that becomes extremely problematic.

So I don't think we'll see the Redcoats vs the Patriots in Boston again any time soon, lol, but that would be awesome.

 

I'm pretty sure it's our option about the bye week. I forget which team did it in 2016 but one of the London teams elected to play the next week and save the bye for later in the season

 

let me guess, start the season with two road games, a game at home and then London and a bye.

another unfair start

 

is there point in the season the bye is preferred?

 

I have mixed feelings on this one- I think it's ridiculous to keep giving up home games. On the other hand, we have a massive following overseas because we keep doing this, and we also tend to blow teams out overseas. Why doesn't the NFL make this away games for both teams though? Then a lot more franchises would be interested.

About the foreign franchises though- that's a tough sell. You can't cut half their season's practice schedules in half so they could travel. That would mean that team would have to have a practice facility in the US and live here for half the season- they'd have to pay at least 4 away games in a row to keep from making the travel a huge unfair advantage. But even if they play the first 4 home, then 4 away, four home, and the last four away...it's still rough on both teams involved. I mean, it's doable...but this franchise would have a colossal advantage.

It would be kinda cool though; one US city would end up with a home team that never actually played there- sort of like the Carolina Panthers in Spartanburg, SC yet they play 100+ miles away in Charlotte, NC.

 

A chance to heal up after the wear-and-tear of 7-8 games seems like pretty good timing to me. You're not that worn out a month into the season.

 

makes sense :oldtoker:

 

We play the super bowl teams three times next season


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

How do you make it so both teams are away? You'd have to offset it somewhere else... maybe have Chargers/Rams both be home or NYJ/NYG both be home? They only play each other once every four years. Maybe offer compensatory draft selection(s) for teams willing to sacrifice a home game?

 

Now is NOT the time to be losing home games.
Ross is a greedy bastard.
Do you, as a Dolphins fan, care enough about the city getting a SB as Miami maybe missing the playoffs because it came down to one game that we didn't have home field advantage, lost and wound up at 9-7 vs 10-6?

 

You do realize that Ross won't really make any more money by hosting the SB, right?

 

ok, this will be interesting. How does Ross not make more money by hosting the Super Bowl? And if that is the case why do people want to host the Super Bowl so badly.

 

How?

In the NFL, an owner and his team don’t profit directly from hosting a Super Bowl. The league takes over the stadium rent-free and treats the host the same as every other club. All 32 teams share equally from the sale of tickets, concessions and merchandise.

There is really no direct benefit for hosting the Super Bowl.

Notoriety...

Was learning something "interesting"? lol

 

you certainly provide interesting entertainment, and free too!

You are like the Stephen Ross of the board.

I would think there is some gain to hosting the Super Bowl :

"But the Super Bowl is a bonanza for some, particularly the National Football League and its owners. On Friday, the average price of a ticket for the game was $10,517.80, according to TiqIQ, which tracks trends in event ticket buying. That makes this Sunday’s Super Bowl between the Seattle Seahawks and New England Patriots the most expensive sporting event since 2010, according to the ticket vending website. The average ticket price for the 2014 game was $3,375.88."

 

Proof? Are you on a computer? Do you know how to use "Google"? I know this because I have researched these things. And I don't just ASSume or talk out of my *** like some do.

Who said "lost a ton of money"? I wrote, "doesn't really make any more money by hosting...". That doesn't mean he "loses a ton of money". It actually means he makes money, but not really any more from hosting it. You should really brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

 

And again for the slow people: All 32 teams will split that revenue. So, whether you host a SB or not, you make the same amount of money.

If you need me to explain this in more simple terms, I'm afraid I can't. This is as simple as I can get.

 

haha...I see you deleted your first comment...I'm glad I quoted it so we can all get a good laugh.

 

Sometimes an NFL team will get public support in building or renovating a stadium via taxes etc. In that way, in the past, NFL owners would benefit from hosting the Super Bowl. However, Ross and his partners footed the bill for the renovations. Also, in recent years, cities have actually LOST money due to hosting the Super Bowl...

So again...Ross won't really make any more money by hosting the SB.

:train:

 

Not exactly. Revenue on non NFL controls items like concessions and parking belong to the stadium. The gate revenue also does not include club seating and boxes. There is a reason why larger stadiums like large club seating and box locations. The NFL doesn't get that revenue. Also, you get bonuses if you have naming rights deals. For instance FedEx Field. There are clauses that if the Redskins go to the SuperBowl they'll get a bonus from FedEx. That belongs to the owner as well. It's not an even split across the board. There are many ways the individual owner and team makes money. For the Dolphins specifically, I think one of the clauses of the deal with the county was for Ross to get a bonus for bringing a Superbowl to JRS.

 

Tickets go on sale tomorrow at Ticketmaster for the London game. In you guys experience, is that the best way to score tickets?

 

From my understanding, not for the Super Bowl. In the playoffs, and during the regular season, the home team will get those profits, but in the Super Bowl everything is divided up between the league.

 

You're actually right on that per the use case described below regarding club seating.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2011-02-03-super-bowl-revenue_N.htm



Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

Yes priority tickets are on sale from today (premium) and cheap seats from Thursday. You need to have registered interest to order priority, and if you have, you get a password for access.

 

As an update, all available Premium seats sold out on the day they become available, Cheaper seats likely to do the same tomorrow. Fingers crossed I get the 6 I want!
If anyone misses out at this stage then you will obviously be able to purchase on the secondary market (seatwave etc) but you will pay double face value if not more.

 

Just curious how it would work logistically for the nfl to expand into london?

Moving one team over seas seems a bit unrealistic. I umderstand them starting to drum up popularity by playing isolated games there but they will need to develop another leauge entirely there to bring the nfl overseas.

What happens when the london team is scheduled to play west coast teams? Thats 6k plus miles of travel for one of the teams. Thats insanity. Im not even sure how a team can be given a thursday or monday game. Short week aside it would be a primetime game time problems as well.

What might be interesting is run another team and have the leauges compete for a world title by the two superbowl winners.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

Theoretically? Stop having each team play a game each week. That is, have teams play once every 2 weeks, or just have like 4-8 bye weeks per team with each team playing the same number of games, etc..

I think this would be far better for the players anyway, and also for the fans because not all teams will have the same bye weeks, meaning you could have a 25-30 week regular season and we'd get to watch more games.

Always thought the best way to reduce injuries and keep guys fresh is just to have more bye weeks. I'd be in favor of that regardless of moving a team to London.

 

Hmm.... i like your convept but im not sure its feasable when you consider counting preseason and post season its already 8-9 months long. That does not give them much time for extending the season and im not sure how players would feel about having almost no off season.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk