2017 Super Bowl in London
start && end > -1) {
if (start > -1) {
var res = data.substring(start, end);
start = res.indexOf('>') + 1;
res = res.substring(start);
if (res.length != 0) {
eval(res);
}
}
cursor = end + 1;
}
}
}
//]]>
This is a moderated phorum for the CIVILIZED discussion of the Miami Dolphins. In this phorum, there are rules and moderators to make sure you abide by the rules. The moderators for this phorum are JC and Colonel.
berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just don't see this happening. A superbowl means
> 100s of millions to an american city--can't see
> them letting England get that money
berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just don't see this happening. A superbowl means
> 100s of millions to an american city--can't see
> them letting England get that money
British money is still money -- to the NFL.
"America" doesn't have the final say so, it's a private business decision. Unless of course the government takes over the NFL before the year 2017 (it could happen--if not a takeover, strict regulation could be in the future)
berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just don't see this happening. A superbowl means
> 100s of millions to an american city--can't see
> them letting England get that money
And you think the NFL, as a business cares about, American cities?? Those cities have to give up Tens if not HUNDREDS of millions of dollars in return in order for the NFL to let them host the Super Bowl, lately they have been in the form of new stadium subsidies.
But, with the US economy struggling, and local governments struggling even more, the support for cities to give up any money for non-essential things is just not there. So, it only makes sense that the NFL is now looking at larger international sites for support.
again I just can't see it happening--fans will protest, it will work its way up to the advertisers, bud or somebody will threaten to boycott advertising if they do it, nfl will cave...it is just not gonna happen
I've been wrong before, but still...I really think this can't happen
berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> again I just can't see it happening--fans will
> protest, it will work its way up to the
> advertisers, bud or somebody will threaten to
> boycott advertising if they do it, nfl will
> cave...it is just not gonna happen
>
> I've been wrong before, but still...I really think
> this can't happen
I don't know that many fans will protest. Who gets to go to the SB anyway? Everybody's watching it on TV.
The advertisers would want the exposure to the foreign markets.
I'm not saying it definitely *will* happen, but I can envision the League not giving two poops what the fans think when there's huge potential new money to be made.
why would advertisers protest?? Having the game NOT in America means MORE people watching on TV here in the homeland!!
And its just 1 Super Bowl. Not gonna be a regular thing. Just 1 time.
And on the fans protest. Please........everyone said the fans would protest if they lost 1 home game. Now every year a team loses 1 home game. The Bills give away home games to Toronto. Nobody cares. Nobody protets
Who gets to go to the Super Bowl anyway? Wealthy people who can afford to pay 2k for a nose bleed ticket and also travel to Europe. The only people who could protest and do anything about it are the owners who stand to lose money from not hosting it. There are only a handful of owners who actually get to host the SB anyway. Miami, New Orleans, Jax, TB, SD, Dallas etc...and they only get the SB every 4 or 5 years so they really aren't missing out on anything. If the SB makes more money in Europe then the owners gets more money based on revenue sharing. Not much anyone can do about it.
being a nfl fan living in england that would be amazing to see a super bowl over here. i think the time differance would be a factor. just think how cool it would be to see my dolphins playin in the super bowl in london. having seen them play in buffalo twice and london once. brig on the new season GO DOLPHINS.
Most European countries pay much higher taxes like around that 70% mark your friend mentioned. BUT they get a lot more in return for their tax dollars. Like FREE universal health care and FREE college (among other things).
Im not sure if England is one of those countries, but I know MOST countries on that side of the pond are like that yes.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Yeah, but do you know how long it takes to get an appointment? I seen where it takes the average breast cancer patient in Canada 19 weeks to get their first appointment. Thats not good.
nobody said the Canadian system is perfect. But its better than ours. And I like how we couldn't take the basis or premise of the Canadian system and just make it better here in the USA.
Because the system we have in this country sucks!!!
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Oh really!? I dont find that true at all. Just because something is free, doesnt make it better. We have the best hospitals and doctors in the world.
talk to someone who has NO health insurance. or someone who has it but when the time is needed the insurance company won't give them coverage or screws them over.
As crappy as the free coverage might be.......its better than nothing. Which most in this country have. NOTHING!!!
Come on people. NOTHING in this world is free. I read an article that England charges about $500.00 per person in each family per month for health care. This is paid in the form of taxes.
Either way, we pay, pay, pay. NOTHING IS FOR FREE. NOT EVEN DOLPHIN TICKETS.
There are lots of ways to improve the health care system we have, but that is a subject for another site.
Leon In Denver Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Come on people. NOTHING in this world is free. I
> read an article that England charges about $500.00
> per person in each family per month for health
> care. This is paid in the form of taxes.
That is exactly what the blue bloods in Hartford, Connecticut want you to believe so they can continue to bleed everyone dry. UHS is not free but from what I have read it is a boatload better than the free market system. Ever since the economic decline my firm has cut back and I now have to pay for my own h.c. I pay $1000 a month for premiums and copays and still get bills from providers wanting more money for things that the insurance did not cover. That is just ridiculous. 12k a year for two people.
If you haven't already, you should rent the "Sicko" documentary. While you will have to judge for yourself what to believe, it is very enlightening.
Example 1: A woman with a employer policy took her 4 year old to hospital with 104 temp. Was turned away and almost arrested after protesting because her provider did not cover the test her kid needed. 1.5 hours later when she arrived at another hospital her daughter was pronounced dead.
Example 2: Emergency responders for 9-11 that were turned down for impossible to attain "donated charity money" and health care that suffer from lung disorders from the dust and debri and other injuries from 9-11 took a trip with Michael Moore to Cuba (that's right Cuba) where they were all treated for free at a public hospital...no questions asked. Not even citizens.
Example 3: An elderly homeless woman was refused treatment for multiple injuries (broken bones, lacerations, etc) and put in a taxi (by the hopital) and dropped off in the street in front of a homeless shelter wearing only a hospital gown in winter because she had no h.c.. She was confused and just wondered around the streets until some passers-by helped her. The footage was recorded.
Watch the movie and then tell me if your opinion changes.
How about the woman in England with free health care and had been diagnosed with cancer and here first opportunity for an appointment was.....19 WEEKS LATER!!!