The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V2

I've heard that tragedy + time = comedy, but Manziel is proof that it can work in the other direction too. His story stopped being funny a long time ago and you can't help thinking it's going to get much, much more depressing before it ends. Would really be for the best if the media could just leave him the hell alone at this point, there's something voyeuristic and nasty about still poring over the mess he has made.

Maybe he should team up with John Daly

brinty wrote: »

Well said sir
Don't think he got over the cowboys not drafting him. He was so sure they'd take him. Our actual choice Zach Martin has proven to be a great choice for us 3 time all Pro and Pro bowl player,so I'm not going to complain. Over the summer I believe cowboys offered to help him get things together on a personal level, not football but he turned it down.
The worst thing was he got picked up by the browns and they we're in such a mess they couldn't support him at all.

I think laying any of it at the Browns door is rather unfair, this is all on Johnny.

It seems crazy to have another NFL team in LA just as the Rams are trying to establish themselves.

I'm glad the vote failed in San Diego. Its a ridiculous game of blackmail the NFL teams play trying to get local governments to pay for their stadiums.

The Chargers moving to LA sounds like a highly questionable decision now that the Rams are already there. I'd imagine they'll be facing 5 years at least of terrible attendances as they try to build a fan base, while the Rams directly compete with them to do the same thing in the same city.

Blut2 wrote: »

I'm glad the vote failed in San Diego. Its a ridiculous game of blackmail the NFL teams play trying to get local governments to pay for their stadiums.

The Chargers moving to LA sounds like a highly questionable decision now that the Rams are already there. I'd imagine they'll be facing 5 years at least of terrible attendances as they try to build a fan base, while the Rams directly compete with them to do the same thing in the same city.

Yeah there could be a long term silver lining in this, if the move goes t1ts up for the Chargers the threat of moving a team might not be the ace in the pack it has always been for team owners. It's a ridiculous situation in American sports. The same thing happened in Arlington recently where the Texas Rangers were looking for a new stadium and the people had to vote in November on whether to pay a new tax in order to build it, or lose the Rangers to Dallas. That's a team worth 1.25 billion dollars, hosing the people who are meant to be their fans. It's a crazy situation and the more times the blackmail fails the better it will be long term.

Shedite27 wrote: »

That's a 30 minute drive between the two. Mental

Yeah, the argument is that the jobs and income that they bring to Arlington will offset the expense of paying for the stadium with a new tax.It was overwhelmingly supported, despite (or maybe because of) how regressive it is. A big part of it is a hike in sales tax, which is more detrimental the poorer you are (and as such, the less likely you are to be able to ever visit the stadium for a game). There are also fairly hefty ticket and parking taxes directly borne by fans, though. This is all to replace a very, very nice stadium right next door which was only upgraded in 2010 at massive expense, having been built at taxpayers expense in 1990 (135 million out of a total cost of 189 million). The Rangers just wanted a new toy, simple as. Into the deal the Rangers also get a new hotel which will be heavily taxpayer subsidised in the form of rebates and cash injections.

And this whole thing is actually chicken feed comparing with the money they spent luring the Cowboys out there. They spent 325 million in tax-payers money getting Jerryworld built. Small cities like Arlington that have deep pockets comparatively speaking are a huge problem, because poorer cities are put into bidding wars to hold onto teams like this, which bring much needed income and boost the morale and profile of the city.

It's a balls, basically.

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Doesn't the public paying for stadiums come from Amercians completely idolizing people who have money.At times it seems like a lot of less well off American's think they owe the rich something and not the other way around.Look at Trump being elected for supposedly representing the little guy.

Maybe, but the more immediate issue is the perverse version of a free market that they have evolved. Unlike in England, say, where Man Utd can't really leave Manchester (I mean maybe they could but their brand is tied up with the city), the teams are branded in ways that are pretty malleable. more importantly, they are free to move to whomever gives them the best deal. Of course in a properly free market they would also be obliged to pay their way. It shouldn't be possible to seek public funding for private capital developments in this way, if the Americans were as devoted to the operation of the free market as they believe. It's a free market if you're a billionaire team owner, of course. So free even the stadium is pretty much free...

Jesus sometimes between that and concussion and domestic violence and Jon Gruden and roughing the passer penalties, it can all be a little depressing.