T1B

From The Boston Globe


A foreign Super Bowl being considered

April 27, 2007

Speaking to members of the Associated Press Sports Editors in New York yesterday,
commissioner Roger Goodell said the NFL is exploring the possibility of staging a
Super Bowl outside the United States -- probably in Mexico City, London, or Toronto --
sometime after 2011.



x infinity x eternity x go fuck yourself

I cannot believe this is even being considered...

I can definitely believe it.

Socialist cocktwats set the timer for ruination of the game a long time ago.

It'll never happen....think happy thoughts, Pops.

It will happen. And it will be the suck.

Can you imagine for us fans who will actually travel to Super Bowls having to pay last minute airfare to a place like London? It's bullshit.

Paul, the fact that the commish even spoke of it means it's already happened.
If not tangibly, where it counts the most .... in the heart.

We're in a global age, and the league has had designs on a vast global sports market for a long time now.

The steps the league has been taking for the past 20-or-so years have been in preparation for what they plan to eventually be a world football league.

Think positive, pops.

Maybe they'll have it in Seoul.

war your team not making the sb the year this happens. It would be funny to watch the browns vs the lions or bears or some other long suffering NFC team. so the fans can cry about not being able to even enjoy the game. LOL

unwar whistles at a Football game. NFL europe is awful listening to that whistling.

Who cares? 99% of the people at the game are corporate whores anyway. Toronto, Wembley whatever, it all looks the same on my TV.

I can see Toronto and Mexico City, but how would they work a game in London ? I guess it would start between 1 and 3 here, which would mean ....

Bloody Mary brunches for Super Bowl Parties in Cali.




I can't wait for the next decade or two, when we'll finally have a Unification Bowl. :D

mvscal wrote:

See You Next Wednesday wrote:Who cares?

Just about any American city which doesn't mind millions upon millions in additional economic activity and tax revenue.

Most of which will not filter back into the local economy.

mvscal wrote:

See You Next Wednesday wrote:Who cares?

Just about any American city which doesn't mind millions upon millions in additional economic activity and tax revenue.

RACK



What, we dont help these other fucking countries enough?





But seriously, its a stupid fucking idea all the way around. Want the Super Bowl in London? Then make one for the NFL Europe league.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote: Just about any American city which doesn't mind millions upon millions in additional economic activity and tax revenue.

Most of which will not filter back into the local economy.

Shut the fuck up, idiot.

The truth hurts.

mvscal wrote:Right. Because all those millions being spent in local hotels, restaurants, bars and stores really go to benefit some other local economy.



The truth is you're fucking idiot.

Most of that money is shipped back to corporate HQ. Only a small percentage ever makes it back into the local economy.

Don't tell me you didn't know.

mvscal wrote:

See You Next Wednesday wrote:Who cares?

Just about any American city which doesn't mind millions upon millions in additional economic activity and tax revenue.

Sorry, i will amend my statement, to

Why should I care?

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:Right. Because all those millions being spent in local hotels, restaurants, bars and stores really go to benefit some other local economy.



The truth is you're fucking idiot.

Most of that money is shipped back to corporate HQ. Only a small percentage ever makes it back into the local economy.

Don't tell me you didn't know.

You're a fucking clueless dipshit. Period. EOS

Oh, so when Holiday Inn, Marriott et al gouge Super Bowl attendees for their rooms, they then turn around and reinvest that money into the community?

Negro please.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:Right. Because all those millions being spent in local hotels, restaurants, bars and stores really go to benefit some other local economy.



The truth is you're fucking idiot.

Most of that money is shipped back to corporate HQ. Only a small percentage ever makes it back into the local economy.

Don't tell me you didn't know.

You're a fucking clueless dipshit. Period. EOS

RACK MV


X the number of forehead sack indentions on BSchmucks ballport after his incredibly moronic post.

Really, Brian, they may jack the rates for that week, and much of that may go to corporate HQ, but the hotels and restaurants are sure to be full, and many of those employees are tipped. Chances are, those employees will spend that additional income in their community.

Room taxes often run 8-10%, and that money goes to local government. Much of the food consumed in the restaurants may be locally grown/produced.

To suggest that there isn’t a significant financial benefit to the city hosting a Super Bowl is ludicrous.

http://www.dallascityhall.com/council_b ... erBowl.pdf

Methinks the city makes out fine.

Goober McTuber wrote:To suggest that there isn’t a significant financial benefit to the city hosting a Super Bowl is ludicrous.

The benefit is minimal and concentrated almost entirely in the service sector. Even then, when weighed against the cost of building a state of the art stadium, there is almost zero financial gain. These events are nothing more than corporate welfare.

BSmack wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:To suggest that there isn’t a significant financial benefit to the city hosting a Super Bowl is ludicrous.

The benefit is minimal and concentrated almost entirely in the service sector. Even then, when weighed against the cost of building a state of the art stadium, there is almost zero financial gain. These events are nothing more than corporate welfare.

My bad. I thought most of Super Bowl cities already had stadiums. I would have thought that was essential to hosting the game.

IndyFrisco wrote:http://www.dallascityhall.com/council_b ... erBowl.pdf

Methinks the city makes out fine.

So the city of Houston came out 1.3 million ahead BEFORE weighing the cost of Reliant Stadium?

Goober McTuber wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:To suggest that there isn’t a significant financial benefit to the city hosting a Super Bowl is ludicrous.

The benefit is minimal and concentrated almost entirely in the service sector. Even then, when weighed against the cost of building a state of the art stadium, there is almost zero financial gain. These events are nothing more than corporate welfare.

My bad. I thought most of Super Bowl cities already had stadiums. I would have thought that was essential to hosting the game.

Super Bowl bids are used to entice cities into wasting money on new/refurbished stadiums for billionaires who don't want to spend their own money. See Detroit, Jacksonville, Houston, San Diego, Atlanta...

BSmack wrote: Super Bowl bids are used to entice cities into wasting money on new/refurbished stadiums for billionaires who don't want to spend their own money.

1. A new or refurbished stadium is hardly a waste. It will be used for many years after the SB has passed through. There is a trickle down effect from all that cash being spent, and not just in the service area. Service employees drive cars, pay taxes, etc. To suggest that a SB doesn't benefit the local economy is short-sighted.

2. Being as how the city or county generally own the stadium's, why should the owners foot the entire bill? The Chiefs are putting up $75 mil towards the upgrade of Arrowhead, the rest being covered by Jackson County. No SB for us though, as voters turned down the roof required to qualify for that. Still, it's a wise investment.

It sure must suck when all those local downtown restaurants have to send their profits to "headquarters."

mvscal wrote:And San Diego raked.

The economic estimates for Superbowls range from 400 million (NFL) to 100 million (most academic studies). Even accepting the lower range figure, 100 million dollars is a far from a "minimal" benefit.

100 million is a total loss. Because that doesn't factor the money sunk into the stadium. They would have been better off just giving every man woman and child in the San Diego metro area their tax money back rather than sinking it into that abortion of a stadium your team's owners are ALREADY trying to ditch for bright shiny new digs. For which I'm sure Goodell will promise a Super Bowl and a reach around to San Diego.

War Wagon wrote:There is a trickle down effect from all that cash being spent, and not just in the service area.

Whitey, Herbert Hoover wants his economic policy back.

Whitey says for you to get a clue.

"Fuck Commerce!"

--- Billy Walsh, Entourage


The NFL will lose some fans if this happens. Not a ton, but some fans will be turned off by this.

this is a very, very bad idea.....

BSmack wrote:

Because that doesn't factor the money sunk into the stadium.

the stadium doesn't quit making money when the SB leaves town B.......

maybe you ought to quit while you're behind....

Felix wrote:the stadium doesn't quit making money when the SB leaves town B.......

maybe you ought to quit while you're behind....

Why don't you try looking at it this way. If building a 500 million dollar stadium is such a great investment, how come some of the smartest businessmen on the planet refuse to do it with their own money?

Don't hurt yourself tripping over the logic.

BSmack wrote:

Felix wrote:the stadium doesn't quit making money when the SB leaves town B.......

maybe you ought to quit while you're behind....

Why don't you try looking at it this way. If building a 500 million dollar stadium is such a great investment, how come some of the smartest businessmen on the planet refuse to do it with their own money?

Probably because they figure the local government will do it for them. Why? Because having an NFL team there continues to benefit the economy. For at least ten weekends a year, not just the one-shot Super Bowl. And perhaps because they figure that's what they have to do to keep their NFL team.

But stadium building is really a separate discussion. There can be no doubt that hosting a Super Bowl has a positive economic benefit for the local community.

Goober McTuber wrote: But stadium building is really a separate discussion.

Not if you're B_Spin trying to deflect.

BSmack wrote:
If building a 500 million dollar stadium is such a great investment, how come some of the smartest businessmen on the planet refuse to do it with their own money?

tough to argue with logic like that........

Gillette Stadium. Built by Bob Kraft and his money. Massachusetts gave I think 50 million to infrastructure. I love our owner.....

Eject Bri.......

Neely8 wrote:Gillette Stadium. Built by Bob Kraft and his money. Massachusetts gave I think 50 million to infrastructure. I love our owner.....

Eject Bri.......

There are exceptions to the rule. The Patriots and Redskins are the most obvious. Ever notice that teams who have no trouble filling an old stadium to 95%+ capacity are the most likely to kick in for their own stadium? Yea, I did too. Meanwhile, guys like Zygi Wilf spin multi billion dollar fantasies about "driving development" and pledge a mere 25% of the stadium cost.

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1164669.html

Toddowen wrote:Welching.

Link? I remember CT being angry with the NFL for interfering in the proposed deal, not Kraft. CT couldn't deliver in the timeframe that Kraft wanted and Tags and Co didn't want to lose the substantially larger Boston market.

Dude, CT couldn't even keep the NHL's Hartford Failures... did you really expect them to be capable of supporting an NFL franchise?

Let me guess... you're one the gullible idiots who believed the Rams might actually move to Hartford too.

War Wagon wrote:Whitey says for you to get a clue.

Maybe Whitey is still sore from the assfucking the Hunt family gave him and the rest of KC taxpayers.

BSmack wrote:Maybe Whitey is still sore from the assfucking the Hunt family gave him and the rest of KC taxpayers.

Begrudgingly, I have to RACK that.