Seahawks rumoured to be playing in London in 2017

[RedAlice]

The Rams have always had a bye after their London games and an East coast game the week before - making it one really long road trip and then a bye. This year was Detroit - London - home for bye.

This really sucks if it is true. It's one thing for the Rams to give up a home game, but even worse to give up a home divisional game.

Last year, it was determined during the season that the Rams would host in London whichever team in the NFC East finished in the same position as them - which is how the Giants ended up with the game. So, they probably have already decided which team.



It's also rumored Rams play Niners in Shanghai in 2018, another divisional game. Rams have a 3 year International game contract until the new stadium is built.

For some reason, I thought the Giants had to play a game in London because they won a super bowl bid? I know I read somewhere that it was part of the new bidding rules to get a super bowl in your home stadium, to play in an international series within 5 years. Maybe it's just a "happy coincidence"? Or maybe it didn't kick in until after the NY Super Bowl?

It was announced during the season last year that whichever team in the NFC East finished in the same position as the Rams would play in London.

At the time, the team was not known yet. It came down to the final game between the Giants and the Eagles - whichever team lost would be going to London. Rams fans knew this, I remember paying attention to the game - even the announcers mentioned it as well. Giants lost.

No idea how the SB bid fits into that - If the Giants had beat the Eagles they could not have played the Rams in London as they would not have been on the Rams schedule this year - the Eagles would've.

It also has to fit into the actual schedule - and the "home" teams are the ones who make the contracts. The "away" teams are the ones who seem to change. Rams and Jax have contracts for multiple years.

 

[ronnieboycefanclub]

If the rumour mill is correct, the four games will be three at Wembley and one at Twickenham. With a 5 or 6 pm kickoff UK time, people will not be happy, especially if the game as this year ends in a tie. Also Twickenham is not in Central London, but some way into the suburbs. The Bengals/Redskins game going to the end of overtime with a 2.30 pm caused a few difficulties to people at Wembley who had trains and planes to catch. A sunday night game kicking off at 1.30 am would never be played. The London Boroughs of Brent and Richmond and the Metropolitan Police would never licence a public event ending at 4.30 am. At Twickenham there are peoples homes 20 feet away from the main entrance.

The tickets are initially sold as season tickets giving a discount if all games are purchased. This leads to at the last game sitting next to empty seats which may have been Jaguars season ticket holders.

I understand the Colts did not have a bye week as they did not ask for one.

 

[kidhawk]

The Rams have always had a bye after their London games and an East coast game the week before - making it one really long road trip and then a bye. This year was Detroit - London - home for bye.

This really sucks if it is true. It's one thing for the Rams to give up a home game, but even worse to give up a home divisional game.

Last year, it was determined during the season that the Rams would host in London whichever team in the NFC East finished in the same position as them - which is how the Giants ended up with the game. So, they probably have already decided which team.



It's also rumored Rams play Niners in Shanghai in 2018, another divisional game. Rams have a 3 year International game contract until the new stadium is built.

For some reason, I thought the Giants had to play a game in London because they won a super bowl bid? I know I read somewhere that it was part of the new bidding rules to get a super bowl in your home stadium, to play in an international series within 5 years. Maybe it's just a "happy coincidence"? Or maybe it didn't kick in until after the NY Super Bowl?

It was announced during the season last year that whichever team in the NFC East finished in the same position as the Rams would play in London.

At the time, the team was not known yet. It came down to the final game between the Giants and the Eagles - whichever team lost would be going to London. Rams fans knew this, I remember paying attention to the game - even the announcers mentioned it as well. Giants lost.

No idea how the SB bid fits into that - If the Giants had beat the Eagles they could not have played the Rams in London as they would not have been on the Rams schedule this year - the Eagles would've.

It also has to fit into the actual schedule - and the "home" teams are the ones who make the contracts. The "away" teams are the ones who seem to change. Rams and Jax have contracts for multiple years.

What I read (and it's been awhile) was that they had a 5 year window to play the international game. Like I said, I'm not sure what year that started, or even if they proposal was ever made official. Giving the 5 years though, would insure that they would play everyone at least once, so there would be a scheduling opportunity somewhere.

Honestly, I think scheduling these international games just adds more headache to what could/should be a simple process of putting out a quality schedule each and every year, but it's the NFL so if they see an opportunity to make and extra few hundred million or so, they're going to grab it and run

 

[RedAlice]

Sound legit - they have to bribe most teams to go play overseas.

If the 5 year SB thing is accurate, I certainly hope the Rams get some credit for the 4 games they will already have played overseas before their Super Bowl hosting.

Although, I could see Kroenke agreeing to an "away" game each year in the future as he has big dreams of making his losing team a global brand. He's using every tactic except winning.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

FWIW I will be shocked if the Seahawks vs Rams is one of the games. Don't see it happening, don't see the Hawks coming to London any time soon.

Personally I wish it was one game a year, a good game, played at a reasonable hour for UK folk. Part of the ratings issue is there's a bloody London game for 3-4 weeks. It's too much. People will tune in at 9am for Pats vs Raiders (for example).

The game is definitely growing over here -- but think they're in danger of overkill.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

Sound legit - they have to bribe most teams to go play overseas.

If the 5 year SB thing is accurate, I certainly hope the Rams get some credit for the 4 games they will already have played overseas before their Super Bowl hosting.

Although, I could see Kroenke agreeing to an "away" game each year in the future as he has big dreams of making his losing team a global brand. He's using every tactic except winning.

Would part of the bribe be that they have to take fisher over there......but not necessarily bring him back???

 

[Sports Hernia]

The Rams have always had a bye after their London games and an East coast game the week before - making it one really long road trip and then a bye. This year was Detroit - London - home for bye.

This really sucks if it is true. It's one thing for the Rams to give up a home game, but even worse to give up a home divisional game.

Last year, it was determined during the season that the Rams would host in London whichever team in the NFC East finished in the same position as them - which is how the Giants ended up with the game. So, they probably have already decided which team.



It's also rumored Rams play Niners in Shanghai in 2018, another divisional game. Rams have a 3 year International game contract until the new stadium is built.

For some reason, I thought the Giants had to play a game in London because they won a super bowl bid? I know I read somewhere that it was part of the new bidding rules to get a super bowl in your home stadium, to play in an international series within 5 years. Maybe it's just a "happy coincidence"? Or maybe it didn't kick in until after the NY Super Bowl?

It was announced during the season last year that whichever team in the NFC East finished in the same position as the Rams would play in London.

At the time, the team was not known yet. It came down to the final game between the Giants and the Eagles - whichever team lost would be going to London. Rams fans knew this, I remember paying attention to the game - even the announcers mentioned it as well. Giants lost.

No idea how the SB bid fits into that - If the Giants had beat the Eagles they could not have played the Rams in London as they would not have been on the Rams schedule this year - the Eagles would've.

It also has to fit into the actual schedule - and the "home" teams are the ones who make the contracts. The "away" teams are the ones who seem to change. Rams and Jax have contracts for multiple years.

What I read (and it's been awhile) was that they had a 5 year window to play the international game. Like I said, I'm not sure what year that started, or even if they proposal was ever made official. Giving the 5 years though, would insure that they would play everyone at least once, so there would be a scheduling opportunity somewhere.

Honestly, I think scheduling these international games just adds more headache to what could/should be a simple process of putting out a quality schedule each and every year, but it's the NFL so if they see an opportunity to make and extra few hundred million or so, they're going to grab it and run

They played an international game Russ' rookie year in Toronto vs the Bills.
I think it was the first "wolf grey" game.
Russ ran for 3 TD's that game.

 

[mikeak]

If we were to go to London for a game, I'd want it to at least come the week before a bye week. Personally I'd love to be able to go to a London game. I think that'd be a blast, but I wouldn't want to see them go through that length of trip and then have to come back to play the next week.

Something like this would definitely be ideal. I could never see the NFL actually thinking this far ahead and caring about the teams, but it would be nice if the teams playing in London either had a TNF/bye the week before and then bye/MNF the week after.

I would be super excited if I was a Hawks fan in London, but I imagine most of us wish we wouldn't have to fly all that way for one game. Especially if the NFL doesn't make "appropriate" concessions for travel/rest.

Looking at this year's games, it looks like they actually may have tried to work it out so teams had byes. 5 of the 6 teams had byes following their games in London. The only team not to have a bye week after was the Colts, and they returned to play the bears (almost better than a bye week...the colts won that game).

You have the RIGHT to get a bye after playing in London. The Colts elected to not have this happen as they felt it would be better not to do so in their case.

 

[HawkGA]

Just as an FYI, here are the Seahawks opponents next year:

HOME: Arizona, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Washington, Houston, Indianapolis, NFC South*
AWAY: Arizona, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, NY Giants, Jacksonville, Tennessee, NFC North*

I could see a game against the Giants preceding the London game and then a bye after.

One other note looking at that list of home opponents, I don't see a decent matchup for the Thursday game to open the season (after the Seahawks win the Super Bowl, of course). Washington maybe?

 

[Hasselbeck]

Just as an FYI, here are the Seahawks opponents next year:

HOME: Arizona, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Washington, Houston, Indianapolis, NFC South*
AWAY: Arizona, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, NY Giants, Jacksonville, Tennessee, NFC North*

I could see a game against the Giants preceding the London game and then a bye after.

One other note looking at that list of home opponents, I don't see a decent matchup for the Thursday game to open the season (after the Seahawks win the Super Bowl, of course). Washington maybe?

Would be Washington or Indy no question.

 

[RedAlice]

There is a really good article on this topic written about why the owner of the Chiefs had an overseas game.

I'm too lazy to find it right now. There is some financial benefit to the home team.

I'll find it later, or someone can google it.

Well, I think it was KC. Coulda been Indy. Was a midwest team.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

There is a really good article on this topic written about why the owner of the Chiefs had an overseas game.

I'm too lazy to find it right now. There is some financial benefit to the home team.

I'll find it later, or someone can google it.

Well, I think it was KC. Coulda been Indy. Was a midwest team.

I remember an article too. Went searching for it but could not find it. I think they got a greater percentage of some of the take or something like that.

 

[kidhawk]

There is a really good article on this topic written about why the owner of the Chiefs had an overseas game.

I'm too lazy to find it right now. There is some financial benefit to the home team.

I'll find it later, or someone can google it.

Well, I think it was KC. Coulda been Indy. Was a midwest team.

As a season ticket holder to a team that hosts international games, maybe you can help me with something that's kind of been in the back of my mind since they started these international games, but I've not really heard discussed (probably because I hang around on a Seahawks board and we don't give up any home games). When a team hosts an international game, that means they give up a home game. How does that work for season ticket holders? Are you allowed to opt in before others for the international game? Do you pay a full game less for the season tickets, or did the price miraculously go up so you are paying more per ticket for the 9 games you get?

 

[253hawk]

Didn't I just read that there will be no more early-morning games in London following the 2017 season? Had to do with low ratings. I'm not sure if this means no more London games period, or they will somehow have to get creative and find a different time slot that works.

Probably because it's still 6:30 AM on the west coast at kickoff. No one is getting up that early to watch a game unless it's their team playing. They'll probably just bump it back to a regular 10 AM game. I actually liked it though, because I could wake up at 9 AM and catch it near the final quarter instead of having to listen to talking heads drone on for an hour of pregame BS.

I'd go to a Hawks game in London in a heartbeat. Would be a fun trip and I've never been across the Atlantic. Seattle and Arizona are the only west coast teams not to play over there yet (but the Cards did play in Mexico City in 2005).

 

[ronnieboycefanclub]

The arrangements for season ticket holders is that they get a discount to account for one less game. They have priority for tickets in London and travel packages. Usually tickets are returned and made available in London close to the game, including some top price tickets. This year the Bengals took up all their allocation and asked for more.

I went to the Giants/Rams game and cannot see any other way that the Rams could get 73000, even if most of them were neutrals, Giants fans and rugby fans there for the beer.

There is history with head coaches being fired just after the London game, watch out Fisher.