More Games for U.K as Stadium sold out (1 Viewer)

FFSaint

uh, no.
Joined
Oct 18, 2001
Messages
3,118
Reaction score
487
Age
39
Offline
Honestly, I don't really mind the games in the UK. I mean seriously, does anyone unless its the Saints? The only problem I have with the game being played against the Chargers is that for 2 years now I have been telling a bunch of people here in SD that we were going to go to NOLA for the Saints and Chargers game......and then SPLAT.

....but the article mentions playing several games in the UK and possibly adding a game to the schedule to play games in the UK.

Now that is something I have a problem with. Players going over there to play one game a year is fine by me, but when you add a game to the already grueling schedule, what does that do for the players' overall health going into the playoffs? Another week of wear and tear is not what I want the Saints to have to endure if we are jockeying for playoff positioning or whatever. IMO, that is too much of a sacrifice to globalize the NFL.
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
13,489
Reaction score
7,361
Location
LA
Offline
Honestly, I don't really mind the games in the UK. I mean seriously, does anyone unless its the Saints? The only problem I have with the game being played against the Chargers is that for 2 years now I have been telling a bunch of people here in SD that we were going to go to NOLA for the Saints and Chargers game......and then SPLAT.

....but the article mentions playing several games in the UK and possibly adding a game to the schedule to play games in the UK.

Now that is something I have a problem with. Players going over there to play one game a year is fine by me, but when you add a game to the already grueling schedule, what does that do for the players' overall health going into the playoffs? Another week of wear and tear is not what I want the Saints to have to endure if we are jockeying for playoff positioning or whatever. IMO, that is too much of a sacrifice to globalize the NFL.

$$$ cures everything :scratch:
 

Saintree River

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
2,912
Reaction score
3,069
Age
39
Location
Seattle
Offline
With a 17 game schedule, that would mean an 18 week season. I can see every team having to go over there once per season (16 matchups). Make it the first 16 weeks of the season, leaving the last 2 off limits from international travel. Then no one loses a home game and everyone in the league has to go to some international location. Spreads the game (which the NFL is going to do anyway) and doesn't do it at the expense of the fans. And they should get rid of 1 if not 2 of the preseason games.
 

bossalinie563

Veteran Starter
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
249
Reaction score
26
Location
houma
Offline
i say screw the uk they have there own football
it really ****** me off to cuz i wanted to see the chargers wish tomlinson was a saint!!
 

DomeDude

Huh ?
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Messages
6,894
Reaction score
2,879
Location
River Ridge
Offline
I think it is absolutley ridiculous to take home games away from cities who have paid dearly for their respective franchises. In today's NFL where taxpayers pay for new stadiums, and incentives to keep their teams there, it is completely wrong to take these games away from them and send them overseas to people who have spent diddly-poo for the right to have teams play there. If they found a way to keep both teams from losing home games, then I would not really have a problem with it. The problem I have is that taxpayers here in the states are being robbed when they lose a home game. Of course the NFL compensates the team for their loss of income, but the city losses all of its income from the lost game. Not to mention the businesses that get screwed by losing a game. If the NFL wants to expand to Europe thats fine, just dont do it at the expense of the American cities who have paid their dues to keep their teams.
 

Dart

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Feb 25, 2008
Messages
2,059
Reaction score
2,574
Offline
Obviously only speculation at this point, but if they can pull it off without increasing the general wear and tear on teams and staff then as far as I'm concerned, it's great! And I think it'd be good for the sport too. I believe the NFL is the most exciting and competitive professional league in world sports and this would give the NFL a great platform on which to prove it.
 

Dart

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Feb 25, 2008
Messages
2,059
Reaction score
2,574
Offline
I think it is absolutley ridiculous to take home games away from cities who have paid dearly for their respective franchises. In today's NFL where taxpayers pay for new stadiums, and incentives to keep their teams there, it is completely wrong to take these games away from them and send them overseas to people who have spent diddly-poo for the right to have teams play there. If they found a way to keep both teams from losing home games, then I would not really have a problem with it. The problem I have is that taxpayers here in the states are being robbed when they lose a home game. Of course the NFL compensates the team for their loss of income, but the city losses all of its income from the lost game. Not to mention the businesses that get screwed by losing a game. If the NFL wants to expand to Europe thats fine, just dont do it at the expense of the American cities who have paid their dues to keep their teams.

It's TV revenue which brings in the majority of the teams' income. By playing a handful of games in 'Europe' that market is suddenly opened up dramatically. I'm sure if there are more games played abroad the NFL and the franchises will find a way to accommodate all parties (including the respective cities) fiscally and I believe that's the right thing to do. But don't labor under the delusion that your $30 on a Sunday is what's buying new stadiums, because it isn't.
 

bclemms

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
33,646
Reaction score
44,244
Age
13
Location
Jackson, ms
Offline
I think it is absolutley ridiculous to take home games away from cities who have paid dearly for their respective franchises. In today's NFL where taxpayers pay for new stadiums, and incentives to keep their teams there, it is completely wrong to take these games away from them and send them overseas to people who have spent diddly-poo for the right to have teams play there. If they found a way to keep both teams from losing home games, then I would not really have a problem with it. The problem I have is that taxpayers here in the states are being robbed when they lose a home game. Of course the NFL compensates the team for their loss of income, but the city losses all of its income from the lost game. Not to mention the businesses that get screwed by losing a game. If the NFL wants to expand to Europe thats fine, just dont do it at the expense of the American cities who have paid their dues to keep their teams.

I agree completely.

It would be one thing if it was the NBA and we would lose one of 41 home games or MLB and lose 1 of 82 home games but in the NFL we lose one in eight games. This means the city loses 12.5% of its revenue, fans lose 12.5% of its chance to go to the game, the businesses lose 12.5% of revenue generated by the NFL and taxpayers lose 12.5% of the value of the franchise each year.

I think the better solution would be to add one more week to the NFL schedule and each team plays an away game at neutral site. The last two weeks of the schedule all teams would play a normal schedule because those games tend to become magnified so close to the playoffs. I don't think London should get them all either. The NFL would benefit greatly from having a few in Europe, a few in Mexico City and a few in Tokyo. I'm sure the west coast teams would just assume fly to Tokyo as they would to Europe since the mileage is nearly identical. If they want to try and expand internationally then that is fine, just don't do it at the expense of the fans and cities that are footing the bills.

Many of the players complain about the preseason being too long and the players will make more money by expanding globally.
 

bclemms

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
33,646
Reaction score
44,244
Age
13
Location
Jackson, ms
Offline
It's TV revenue which brings in the majority of the teams' income. By playing a handful of games in 'Europe' that market is suddenly opened up dramatically. I'm sure if there are more games played abroad the NFL and the franchises will find a way to accommodate all parties (including the respective cities) fiscally and I believe that's the right thing to do. But don't labor under the delusion that your $30 on a Sunday is what's buying new stadiums, because it isn't.


You do realize that cities pay for these brand new stadiums that the teams hold them ransom for don't you? You do realize that these cities generate the money from the taxpayers to pay for these standiums right?

BTW, tickets for 4 to a game, parking, a couple dogs and drinks and the cost is much closer to $500 than $30 but that really isn't what the Domedude was talking about.

New Orleans has to pay the Saints some $20 million annually, provide them with a rent free practice facility, provide them the dome and give them all the revenues just to keep them here. $20 million is not cheap especially for a city that can use all the help it can get.
 

RobG

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Oct 4, 2001
Messages
3,192
Reaction score
75
Location
Jackson, MS (via Monroe, LA)
Offline
The Saints will come out ok on the trip to the UK but NOLA really loses out on the revenue from one weekend of tourism revenue and at this point that hurts.....the upside is that the city may gain some additional exposure in the UK which ultimately could more than make up for the one lost game.....the big question is how long until the city realizes the benefits. I think it was too soon after Katrina to have NOLA lose a home game.
 

Furor

Speak English or Die
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
1,816
Reaction score
204
Age
51
Location
Houston, TX via Gueydan, LA
Offline
New Orleans has to pay the Saints some $20 million annually, provide them with a rent free practice facility, provide them the dome and give them all the revenues just to keep them here. $20 million is not cheap especially for a city that can use all the help it can get.

I don't think New Orleans pays the Saints $20M annually. I also think it was the state that pitched in for the practice facility.
 

bclemms

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
33,646
Reaction score
44,244
Age
13
Location
Jackson, ms
Offline
I don't think New Orleans pays the Saints $20M annually. I also think it was the state that pitched in for the practice facility.

Yeah, the state pays them. Thanks for the correction.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads
 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom