NFL to announce London Games 2018 schedule on Thursday at 3:45pm on Facebook Live - Page 8 - NFL UK Forums
NFL UK Mobile Logo
Go Back   NFL UK Forums > National Football League > 2019 London Games

  #71  
Old 12.01.2018, 01:02 PM
somebody somebody is offline
Team Captain
 
Join Date: 19.08.2010
Posts: 385
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolphin_Akie View Post
It was misleading because you included 11 games where the rules didn't apply in your stat.
Prior to yesterday's announcement only two teams to have hosted in London were required to do so. Nineteen of the games played here were hosted voluntarily.

I am not sure whether you are trolling or stupid. But I trust other people reading have the intelligence to understand that those eleven games happening before any rules even existed shows that teams do host games regardless of such rules.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 12.01.2018, 01:42 PM
boknows34's Avatar
boknows34 boknows34 is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 03.03.2006
Posts: 15,471
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by somebody View Post
Prior to yesterday's announcement only two teams to have hosted in London were required to do so. Nineteen of the games played here were hosted voluntarily.

I am not sure whether you are trolling or stupid. But I trust other people reading have the intelligence to understand that those eleven games happening before any rules even existed shows that teams do host games regardless of such rules.
You've got a nerve, with your smug attitude and multiple accounts.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 12.01.2018, 02:38 PM
Dolphin_Akie's Avatar
Dolphin_Akie Dolphin_Akie is offline
Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: 03.12.2010
Posts: 14,304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by somebody View Post
Prior to yesterday's announcement only two teams to have hosted in London were required to do so. Nineteen of the games played here were hosted voluntarily.

I am not sure whether you are trolling or stupid. But I trust other people reading have the intelligence to understand that those eleven games happening before any rules even existed shows that teams do host games regardless of such rules.
Then why have the rule?

This is one of the main reasons I don't come on this forum much anymore. Can't have a decent debate beyond two posts that doesn't end up with someone being deliberately abusive just because someone disagrees with them.

Last edited by Dolphin_Akie; 12.01.2018 at 02:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 12.01.2018, 02:59 PM
boknows34's Avatar
boknows34 boknows34 is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 03.03.2006
Posts: 15,471
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolphin_Akie View Post
Then why have the rule?

This is one of the main reasons I don't come on this forum much anymore. Can't have a decent debate beyond two posts that doesn't end up with someone being deliberately abusive just because someone disagrees with them.
Exactly. It's clear the rule had to be introduced because there weren't enough teams stepping forward voluntarily after the NFL increased the number of games they wanted to play overseas.

And if you look back at the designated home teams for the IS before the rule was introduced, many of them were teams with question marks regards their stadiums or future in their city.

Rams - first hosted a game here when franchise was in St Louis and we all know what has happened since then. Now playing in temporary venue in Los Angeles for two more seasons before moving to their new stadium.

49ers - played in the dilapidated old Candlestick Park. Have since moved to new Levi's stadium.

Raiders - first played here in 2014 when future in Oakland was in doubt due to major stadium problems. Have since announced they're moving to Vegas and fall under new rule for two more seasons.

Dolphins - Hosted here 3 times. Stadium needed major upgrades which have recently been completed.

Jaguars - the one team that have made a long term commitment to London. Stadium and team facilities have been upgraded.

Vikings - were playing in a temporary venue while their new stadium was being built. Moved into new stadium in 2016.

Falcons - were playing at the time in the Georgia Dome. Moved into new stadium in 2017.

Five of those seven teams will be in shiny new stadiums by 2020. The other two have spent a fortune in stadium upgrades. So I agree with Euro Bob's concerns too. Outside of the Jaguars and a new rule forcing the Super Bowl hosts to play an International Game, the NFL are running out of obvious candidates as it's clear teams aren't exactly clamouring over themselves to give up a home game.

Last edited by boknows34; 12.01.2018 at 03:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 12.01.2018, 03:21 PM
Dolphin_Akie's Avatar
Dolphin_Akie Dolphin_Akie is offline
Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: 03.12.2010
Posts: 14,304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boknows34 View Post
Exactly. It's clear the rule had to be introduced because there weren't enough teams stepping forward voluntarily after the NFL increased the number of games the they wanted to play overseas.

And if you look back at the designated home teams for the IS before the rule was introduced, many of them were by teams with question marks regards their stadiums.

Rams - first hosted a game here when franchise was in St Louis and we all know what happened since then. Now playing in temporary venue in Los Angeles for two more seasons.

49ers - played in the dilapidated old Candlestick Park. Have since moved to new Levi's stadium.

Raiders - First played here in 2014 when future in Oakland was in doubt due to major stadium problems. Have since announced they're moving to Vegas and fall under new rule for two more seasons.

Dolphins - Hosted here 3 times. Stadium needed major upgrades which have recently been completed.

Jaguars - the one team that have made a long term commitment to London. Stadium and team facilities have been upgraded.

Vikings - were playing in a temporary venue while their new stadium was being built. Moved into new stadium in 2016.

Falcons - were playing at the time in the Georgia Dome. Moved into new stadium in 2017.

Five of those seven teams will be in shiny new stadiums by 2020. The other two have spent a fortune in stadium upgrades. So I agree with Euro Bob's concerns too. Outside of the Jaguars and a new rule forcing the Super Bowl hosts to play an International Game, the NFL are running out of obvious candidates as it's clear teams aren't exactly clamouring over themselves to give up a home game.
Completely agree with your post.

I count 12 teams in total that have voluntarily given up a home game. That includes the Vikings who voluntarily gave up a home game whilst playing at the University of Minnesota. So whilst they weren't forced, playing one game at 90,000 seater Wembley over a circa 52,000 seater is a no brainer.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 12.01.2018, 03:24 PM
BuffaloG's Avatar
BuffaloG BuffaloG is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 12.10.2014
Posts: 4,496
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boknows34 View Post
Exactly. It's clear the rule had to be introduced because there weren't enough teams stepping forward voluntarily after the NFL increased the number of games they wanted to play overseas.
To be fair, we dont know that. We know the rule exists, we dont know how many were forced to subsequently. The rule exists but its impossible to know whether they have had to invoke it or whether teams have done it voluntarily. We know for example the Rams were looking at overseas games post their original appearance long before they moved and the rule meant they had to host a game
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 12.01.2018, 03:28 PM
boknows34's Avatar
boknows34 boknows34 is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 03.03.2006
Posts: 15,471
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuffaloG View Post
To be fair, we dont know that. We know the rule exists, we dont know how many were forced to subsequently. The rule exists but its impossible to know whether they have had to invoke it or whether teams have done it voluntarily. We know for example the Rams were looking at overseas games post their original appearance long before they moved and the rule meant they had to host a game
Do we know for certain? No.

Can we look at the evidence and come to a logical conclusion? Yes
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 12.01.2018, 03:36 PM
BuffaloG's Avatar
BuffaloG BuffaloG is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 12.10.2014
Posts: 4,496
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boknows34 View Post
Do we know for certain? No.

Can we look at the evidence and come to a logical conclusion? Yes
I think its hard to tell tbh. I dont think there is much evidence. Teams are increasingly seeing the marketing benefits, so teams like the Raiders and Rams have been looking at playing abroad before the rules came in.

They are useful as a backstop, although I think if the league was relying on them they would be in deep trouble as it would show the whole concept was failing.

It would be interesting if there are any recent interviews from the NFL as to teams willingness to appear.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 12.01.2018, 03:57 PM
boknows34's Avatar
boknows34 boknows34 is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 03.03.2006
Posts: 15,471
Default

Rams and Raiders won't give a stuff about the International Games from 2020 unless they're the designated away team, or if the rule on hosting Super Bowls is still in place.

It was the lack of revenue streams at their old stadiums that made them want to host a London game in the first place. They knew they'd make far more money over here. That won't be the case in Hollywood Park and the Vegas strip. Those stadiums will be hosting Olympics, World Cups, Super Bowls, Final Fours, College Championship Games etc.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 12.01.2018, 04:15 PM
hallstar's Avatar
hallstar hallstar is offline
Pro Bowler
 
Join Date: 18.10.2008
Posts: 910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolphin_Akie View Post
Completely agree with your post.

I count 12 teams in total that have voluntarily given up a home game. That includes the Vikings who voluntarily gave up a home game whilst playing at the University of Minnesota. So whilst they weren't forced, playing one game at 90,000 seater Wembley over a circa 52,000 seater is a no brainer.
I believe the Vikings game was in their last year at the metrodome. Still playing at Wembley was a big upgrade.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +0. The time now is 09:50 PM.