HoosierCat Posted June 6, 2013 Report Share Posted June 6, 2013 http://cincinnati.com/blogs/bengals/2013/06/06/andrew-whitworth-on-if-he-landed-on-a-london-nfl-team-id-quit/Hates the idea of playing a game there and would quit football before playing for a London-based team.So Andrew, tell us how you really feel... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted June 6, 2013 Report Share Posted June 6, 2013 Personally, I'd love an employer-paid week-long work-related trip to London (or Paris, or Madrid, or or or.......) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevnz Posted June 6, 2013 Report Share Posted June 6, 2013 Damn, Whit sounds like an old man. See the world, it ain't such a scary place. Work related trips are great when you can get them. Not to mention the fact that he can't see the need for the NFL to grow it's fan base. He might as well have ended the interview with a "Get off of my lawn!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted June 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2013 Yah, I thought Whit came off pretty harsh too. There are lots of people in business who work overseas for part of their careers, it's usually considered part of the climb up the corporate ladder. I worked with one extremely smart woman who spoke fluent Japanese and spent a year in Japan in college. But I would not be surprised if he were right that lots of players that wouldn't go. My brother in law had a chance to work in in Germany and it would have been a big boost to his career but his wife freaked out. And we know what it's like when the Baby Mama isn't happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
membengal Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 Yup. You quit your job, then move to Oakland, and then to Phoenix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 Yup. You quit your job, then move to Oakland, and then to Phoenix. :lmao: Thanks, I needed that laugh.Nicely done !!! :lmao: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 Also, I disagree with Whit on this one. Maybe older guys that have established family settings wouldn't want to uproot and move.There are spouses jobs, children in school, the remainder of the family, and a myriad of other challenges moving abroad.That being said, there are plenty of resources to aid in that very thing. Ask the military.Now, being a single young NFL rookie or even a younger player and you give them a chance to do something like that and I think they are psyched.The chance to experience another country and culture. Especially in a country that speaks (kinda) the same language.Plus being that close to all those other European countries makes for great travel opportunities.When I was 19, I walked into the recruiters office and said, I want something in the medical field as far away from Cincinnati as possible.I spent my first two years in Germany. I was single, no drinking age, the autobahn before speed limits, and had not a single cent of debt.It was two years of what most people would kill to spend one week doing. I travelled everywhere and did all sorts of craziness.Yeah, what young kid wants to do that ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 Yah, I thought Whit came off pretty harsh too. There are lots of people in business who work overseas for part of their careers, it's usually considered part of the climb up the corporate ladder. I worked with one extremely smart woman who spoke fluent Japanese and spent a year in Japan in college. But I would not be surprised if he were right that lots of players that wouldn't go. My brother in law had a chance to work in in Germany and it would have been a big boost to his career but his wife freaked out. And we know what it's like when the Baby Mama isn't happy.Well, I get the reluctance to move there or have to live there half the yearGoing there for one game, tho? Basically a week, maybe a week and a half? That really shouldn't be no problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 Now all that being said, I don't see a single team that is permanently located in London.How do you account for the travel back and forth ?? Constant jetlag. The added cost for teams ??Not to mention the things mentioned in the PFT piece about free agents and added taxes in the UK.I simply don't think it's something that has a chance at long term success with an initial thought on it.I certainly would be interested in hearing what they would do to counter all the obstacles.Playing a game or per season is one thing. Coordinating a whole season ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted June 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 Yeah the logistics of basing a team in London would be daunting. OTOH coast-to-coast flights in the US aren't all that much shorter. There are workarounds for most of the issues. But really if the NFL is that hell bent on expansion, I would look at Canada or Mexico first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 Coast to coast flights aren't all that much shorter, but there are an additional 3 hours of jetlag to work through going to London.Again though, I think adjusting game time for one game isn't much of an issue.When you start talking about 8 other teams making a trip across the pond, it presents more of an issue. 10 when considering preseason.What about if that London based team makes the playoffs ?? Do they adjust times when the game is played there or here for TV considerations ??We could what if it forever I think and i'm not trying to silly about it.However, what happens when the team from London goes to the Super Bowl and it's being played on the West Coast ??That's a 9 hour time differential. That's not something easily accounted for from a player fairness standpoint.Coming from a person who has traveled all over God's green earth, jet lag of that length is a mother.I still get why they are looking to expand, I just don't know how feasible it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 At least he doesn't appear to be bashing the United Kingdom, he just doesn't want to play on a team there. It would definitely be a significant challenge.My flight over the Atlantic was eight hours long, as compared to three from Ohio to California. I can't imagine how the London Whatevers could be asked to play a game in San Diego. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottishbengal Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 I've said it before and I'll say it again .... the game is going global. That said, I do think there are probably more easier opportunities (logistically) to site teams in Candada or Mexico before Europe. And I don't think the US market is fully exploited yet - Las Vegas, Oklahoma, perhaps a 2nd team based in DC.It's gonna happen it's just a matter of when ......watch this space, but don't hold your breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyline Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 I'd quit too if I were him. 8 flights back and forth across the pond (min.)? That's rough. Good deal for a rookie...not so much for an aging vet with a family to think about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COB Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 Getting to live and work in a great international city? That is one of the great opportunities in life. Closing your mind to such an experience is stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted June 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 the London WhateversNot bad. Would likely accurately reflect the average US fans' initial opinion of the team. My vote would be for the London Timelords. You instantly suck in the huge Dr. Who fanbase.Or you could go with the London Badgers seeing as how hot British chicks already like to parade around in badger outfits so the cheerleader part takes care of itself.Just as long as they don't go back to the Monarchs. Always made me think of butterflies... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walrus Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 the London WhateversNot bad. Would likely accurately reflect the average US fans' initial opinion of the team. :)/>My vote would be for the London Timelords. You instantly suck in the huge Dr. Who fanbase.Or you could go with the London Badgers seeing as how hot British chicks already like to parade around in badger outfits so the cheerleader part takes care of itself.Just as long as they don't go back to the Monarchs. Always made me think of butterflies...Hot chicks and BRIAN MAY! Wow. Which brings to mind, the NFL could just take that gay player issue head-on and franchise the London Queens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted June 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 the London WhateversNot bad. Would likely accurately reflect the average US fans' initial opinion of the team. :)/>/>My vote would be for the London Timelords. You instantly suck in the huge Dr. Who fanbase.Or you could go with the London Badgers seeing as how hot British chicks already like to parade around in badger outfits so the cheerleader part takes care of itself.Just as long as they don't go back to the Monarchs. Always made me think of butterflies...Hot chicks and BRIAN MAY! Wow. Which brings to mind, the NFL could just take that gay player issue head-on and franchise the London Queens.Not bad at all. They could have an all male cheer leading squad that dresses like Margeret Thatcher, the Iron Ladies... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COB Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 Just figured it out. Whitworth is the player rep, and any player that gets put on that team will end up paying most of their salary to the taxman in the UK. Get your body all jacked up beyond repair for cash, but you don't get it, slackers on the dole get it and probably spend it to go watch something they actually care about, like soccer. Suddenly Whit's stance makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walrus Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 the London WhateversNot bad. Would likely accurately reflect the average US fans' initial opinion of the team. :)/>/>/>My vote would be for the London Timelords. You instantly suck in the huge Dr. Who fanbase.Or you could go with the London Badgers seeing as how hot British chicks already like to parade around in badger outfits so the cheerleader part takes care of itself.Just as long as they don't go back to the Monarchs. Always made me think of butterflies...Hot chicks and BRIAN MAY! Wow. Which brings to mind, the NFL could just take that gay player issue head-on and franchise the London Queens.Not bad at all. They could have an all male cheer leading squad that dresses like Margeret Thatcher, the Iron Ladies...ooh, nah - I'm gonna stick with Brian May and the Badger Girls for my cheering squad. I see the Iron Lady more as a mascot -- played in drag, of course. There would be a built-in rivalry there with Steely McBeam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COB Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 Just looked it up. Highest income tax rate appears to be 50%. Then there is a national insurance contribution of 20% of your income. So 70% or so of your income right off the top. But the Wiki page also said 58% was the max total. So maybe there is an offset or something. Let's say 58% max. Then there is a "Value added tax", which is rendered on the sale of goods and services. We call it sales tax over here. Their sales tax? A straight 20%. Government takes 58% of your cash, then if you go buy something they take 20% of that price. 78% of your cash gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 Now my advice for those who dieDeclare the pennies on your eyes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COB Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 Yep, and I think all 4 of the Beatles left England for that very reason, taxes were brutal back then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottishbengal Posted June 9, 2013 Report Share Posted June 9, 2013 The players would no doubt be registered off-shore and so tax on income would be at the rate where they were registered for tax - a lot of the Premier League soccer players do it that way to avoid paying silly high rates of tax.And BTW I think this Govt has reduced the top rate of 50% down to 40% for those earning £1m a year or more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UK Bengal Posted June 9, 2013 Report Share Posted June 9, 2013 There still bad now they have just introduced the bedroom tax if you have a 3 bdroom house and only use 2 they tax you on the one you dont use.So we haveIncome taxNational insurance - medical nhs etcCouncil taxVat 20%Bedroom taxAnd mp's that pay themselves £90,000 a year and hit us with cuts to services then vote themselves a £10,000 a year pay rise and dont get me started on hate preachers !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.