NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[IceCap]

I meant that it was a happy coincidence to Stan. He doesn't care about righting a wrong, it just happens to be the jackpot market for him.

I believe I acknowledged that.

Now I know that's probably the furthest thing from Stan's mind, but that doesn't change the end result.

Yep. There it is.

I presume you're familiar with the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right."

Ok. So it's clear that, even after some time to cool off, you're still interested in taking a passive-aggressive stance here.

That's what the problem is. For all the same reasons they shouldn't have left LA, they shouldn't leave St. Louis. If you're intent on correcting that wrong, how many other wrongs will we seek to make right?

The fact that one market is enthusiastic for Rams football while the other isn't factors into it a lot. St. Louis had ample opportunities to embrace the Rams. They didn't. Do you know how lucky the city and team were to win a Super Bowl within five years of moving? Any other relocated or expansion team would kill for that sort of start.

That, and St. Louis' plan requires tax payer money. While Stan's LA plan doesn't. Get frustrated at that fact all you want. At the end of the day? That's all I need to declare one plan superior to another. And it seems clear that anyone who doesn't have a rooting interest here should feel the same way. "Billionaire pays for his own stadium on land he owns" should trump "billionaire taking tax payer money on a stadium built on public land" each and every time.

Sports are different from your typical business and there are more factors to consider. I should leave it at that, but let me ask you this: the Chargers and the Raiders won't to make a business decision by relocating to Los Angeles with a deal that will be almost entirely privately financed—why should they not be allowed to make that decision?

You're moving the goalposts. You know that. I await your response to my claim that you're managing to out-do a billionaire when it comes to greed by expecting him to keep his business in a less advantageous situation, and to take tax payer money he doesn't need or want, just because you like football.

As for the Raiders/Chargers distraction?

It should be noted that rumours are suggesting that the Chargers will drop their Carson plan if they can work something out with Stan in Inglewood. So you're harping on a plan that, for all we know, may be dead in the water.

For the sake of argument though? All three, ideally, should be allowed to move. The problem is that all three want in on the same market. Now it's not unworkable. The New York City metro area manages three NHL teams well enough. And could probably support three MLB teams, had history played out differently. Problem is that LA has no teams currently, and zero to three may not be the best outcome here, for the teams or league. So one team, at least, needs to be shut out.

So why should the Chargers/Raiders deal be nixed in favour of Kroenke's Inglewood deal? A variety of reasons. The first is historical. The Raiders and Chargers moving into LA together in the same stadium would necessitate one team switching conferences. Picking apart the AFC West by sending them to the NFC while replacing them with a NFC mainstay would be a shame, in my opinion. Now you don't seem concerned by that, but I am. And you asked me, so I'm saying it again. I don't think that should be allowed to happen.

More importantly? The Chargers have had nearly twenty years to solidify their claim on LA and have failed to do so. Claims that the LA market is vital to their economic well being are dubious, to say the least. Only a fool would believe that the LA market would remain open forever. The Chargers should have made this move years ago. They didn't, and only began to act once they saw Stan making his move. They had two decades to make LA theirs. They didn't.

Furthermore? Their actions regarding Stan and the Rams have been childish and hypocritical. They claimed that it would be wrong to allow a team that had abandoned the LA market to reclaim it. Their move, to try and counter the Rams' return, is to then ally with the Raiders. A team that abandoned LA the same off-season that the Rams did. I'd laugh if I weren't so used to this sort of unintended comedy from the Chargers' ownership.

Not to mention that Stan's stadium is shovel-ready, whereas the Raiders/Chargers Carson plan isn't quite there. All thing being equal? Both LA plans are great in that they don't require public money. It's just that one is bogged down with the issues I've explained above, while the other has the inside track when it comes to development. So it's Stan's deal that I would prefer. If the Chargers can get in on that? Cool. I won't complain.

[STL FANATIC]

Ice, why the tone? I realize you acknowledged it, but first you called into question me calling it a coincidence. I was simply clarifying the specific manner in which I meant it.

Of course, as I read further it seems you (mis)interpreted my tone. So now I can understand it.

But I assure you, you did misinterpret my tone. I can see how and why. But I didn't mean it that way.

[IceCap]

Well there are only so many ways to interpret "I assume you're familiar with this simple proverb that we teach to five year olds." Most aren't very flattering. My apologies for assuming the worst.

I stand by my reasoning though. Taking the Rams from St. Louis wouldn't constitute an equal "wrong." LA seems to want the Rams back. Fan support in St. Louis has been, in my opinion, lacking.

Further, the two situations aren't very similar. The move from LA to St. Louis was accomplished with the construction of the EJD (which the city is still paying off) and a terrible deal for the team's new city. The potential move from St. Louis to LA would be accomplished with a privately financed stadium. The team's potential new city wouldn't be on the hook for anything.

So all in all? Relocation sucks, but the LA to St. Louis move seems scummy in ways the potential St. Louis to LA move just isn't.

[The_Admiral]

the Chargers and the Raiders won't to make a business decision by relocating to Los Angeles with a deal that will be almost entirely privately financed—why should they not be allowed to make that decision?

1. Subtracting San Diego to add Los Angeles represents a smaller gain (and a lateral move for the state of California) than subtracting St. Louis to add Los Angeles.

B. Moving a team that's been in place for 55 years, all but its first season, is worse for public perception of the league than allowing a team to move back to where it used to be prior to relocating under dubious circumstances.

III. The Carson site is said to be a logistical nightmare compared to the Fabulous Forum/Hollywood Park part of Inglewood, which has precedent as an entertainment district.

四. There's a possibility that the Carson site is the big pool of toxic waste from Wet Hot American Summer.

[Gothamite]

I think we all recognize that this can be a very emotional issue. It's amazing that we've carried on a conversation this long and only a few times dipped our toe into personal waters.

I do agree with Ice, though:

Further, the two situations aren't very similar. The move from LA to St. Louis was accomplished with the construction of the EJD (which the city is still paying off) and a terrible deal for the team's new city. The potential move from St. Louis to LA would be accomplished with a privately financed stadium. The team's potential new city wouldn't be on the hook for anything.

So all in all? Relocation sucks, but the LA to St. Louis move seems scummy in ways the potential St. Louis to LA move just isn't.

I hate relocation. My hometown and my adopted hometown still bear the scars half a century later. But as far as any of them go, this would be about the least objectionable I can think of. Well, aside from them finally moving the Rays to a city that would give even half a about them.

[STL FANATIC]

The misinterpretation of my tone and emotional stuff aside (and I admit, I stated it in a way that left that wide open, but it really wasn't how I meant it)...

I was really just trying to get to the heart of your views. There's a few, and I was just kind of breaking it down.

So you think guys building their own stadiums is proper and that they should have the right to relocate their teams where they want them (presuming it's contractually allowable). That's not a stance I endorse, but ok, I understand it. I was making sure you were being consistent on that. It appears you are. I understand that in all reasonableness it has to be one or the other so you're allowed to have tiebreakers beyond that one point, just making sure.

To the point of the Rams leaving St. Louis not being like the Rams leaving LA. You're right about the way the stadium is being built. When the Rams left LA, they screwed over LA and screwed over STL at the same time. The fact that they're publicly financing the stadium in LA this time would mean they're just screwing over the city they're leaving. So I'll grant you that it's better.

It's the fan enthusiasm part where I'm saying it's the same. Not enthusiasm right now, but enthusiasm at the two points in which the franchise was relocating. When the Rams left LA, fan support was terrible. Was it because the team wasn't great, the owner deliberately ran down the fan base, and because there was a very clear threat of relocation? Of course. But, well, exactly.

Now, for me?

Ultimately, my view point is that franchise relocation sucks. There is no righting wrongs in these situations unless expansion is involved. I believe sports leagues are different than your standard business (and I also don't believe "it's just business" absolves people from acting without a conscience). Teams shouldn't relocate whenever they so chose. Sports leagues expect loyalty from the consumer but the leagues believe none is owed back? That's not supposed to be how it works, and even the NFL doesn't believe that's how it's supposed to work or their bylaws (unenforceable or not) wouldn't even be a thing.

And since I believe that I'm also able to dismiss the idea that Kroenke building his own stadium in LA makes him the good dude. He could spill his wallet a little a build the new stadium in St. Louis himself. THAT is what would make him the good guy in this mess. And he would still make a great deal of money in doing so, so it's not like I'm asking him to do anything insane.

I don't like seeing Oakland or San Diego lose their team any more than that either. I can convince myself that they're still in California at least, but it's still garbage. The NFL screwed this up a long time ago and now someone who shouldn't get hurt is going to.

[zpqmaowl]

Found a rendering for what Saint Louis should build instead of a new football stadium:

[The_Admiral]

That's not supposed to be how it works, and even the NFL doesn't believe that's how it's supposed to work or their bylaws (unenforceable or not) wouldn't even be a thing.

Ahh!

On the contrary, I'm sure the NFL's owners would love for relocation to be easy. Not allowing teams to move was a condition of the federal government approving the NFL-AFL merger. Keeping teams where they are would be my ideal policy for three of the four leagues (I don't mind NBA teams being portable; basketball lacks the infrastructural commitment of football/baseball and the sentimental national-pastime aspect of baseball/hockey).

[Mac the Knife]

Sports are different from your typical business and there are more factors to consider.

No, that's the key mistake sports fans make, and a big reason their loyalty's are misguided. A sports franchise is a purveyor of an entertainment product, and they shouldn't be viewed in any light other than that, and given no more loyalty than you would to, say, a favorite TV or Broadway show. Just because that product is entertainment in the form of a competitive sport doesn't make them different from any other business.

That the team will be returned to the fanbase that it was originally and unfairly taken from.

The Rams are going back to Cleveland? Wow... I'd argue that anyone who cared about them leaving back in the '40's is likely dead or, at least, over it by now though...

[STL FANATIC]

But we all KNOW they're different. We do. This whole forum wouldn't exist if they weren't. Nobody is very good at explaining why they're different, but they are, and it seems strange to me to deny that.

(It's okay if you still think the Rams should move. That's a valid—if debatable—viewpoint. But it is strange to deny that the sports industry is—in practicality—different from other businesses.)

Also, as admiral points out, they're legally different in many ways also. They don't have to play by the same rules as most businesses.

[STL FANATIC]

The St. Louis Stadium task force is holding some sort of rally/press conference thing 45 minutes before the start of the game tonight TOMORROW in a parking lot nearby.

This was just announced at like 2:30 or something and starts at 6:15, which makes the whole thing strange.

There will be some foot traffic in the area, so the potential exists for a decent crowd, but if they were hoping to do it as a true showing of support, I'd think they'd have announced it days in advance, not a couple of hours this isn't a ton of notice, so I'm not sure what they're envisioning.

Wonder if there's anything to it.

[LMU]

(It's okay if you still think the Rams should move. That's a valid—if disagreeable—viewpoint.)

To you. As you're essentially the only person railing against a move for the Rams can you at least admit that there's some homerism in play? Every point you make is essentially a blanket statement that everyone else is wrong.

[STL FANATIC]

EDIT: Whoops. Sorry.

[DustDevil61]

The St. Louis Stadium task force is holding some sort of rally/press conference thing 45 minutes before the start of the game tonight in a parking lot nearby.

This was just announced at like 2:30 or something and starts at 6:15, which makes the whole thing strange.

There will be some foot traffic in the area, so the potential exists for a decent crowd, but if they were hoping to do it as a true showing of support, I'd think they'd have announced it days in advance, not a couple of hours.

Wonder if there's anything to it.

Sounds just as timely and as well-planned as the stadium proposal. How am I not surprised by this?

[STL FANATIC]

As it turns out, tonight is not Thursday. Not sure what I was thinking. Rally-ish-thing and game are tomorrow.

[DustDevil61]

As it turns out, tonight is not Thursday. Not sure what I was thinking. Rally-ish-thing and game are tomorrow.

Noticed that not long after posting it. Still, one day's notice (as opposed to say, the better part of a week) isn't what I would call encouraging.

[STL FANATIC]

Meanwhile... RUMORS:

Jason Cole of Bleacher Report tweets:

#zRams & #Chargers pairing in Inglewood is gaining momentum among #NFL owners. Big reason: They don't think #Raiders have $ to make it work

#Rams & #Chargers pairing in Inglewood is gaining momentum among #NFL owners. Big reason: They don't think #Raiders have $ to make it work

Here is another issue to consider: How long before Mark Davis is ultimately forced to sell #Raiders to a deep-pocket owner?

And, finally, the idea of #Jaguars going to StL is again being bandied about #NFL owners and executives. That's top StL solution, for now

One other thing about #Rams & #Chargers in LA: Rams are ok with it but Chargers aren't right now. Not a lot of trust between the 2 just yet

And former head coach and current ESPN announcer John Gruden states in reference to a Raiders move to LA:

I have a couple of my sources down there that say it’s inevitable

He goes onto say something about "too much going on" with Kroenke's site, but it's unclear to me whether he means too much in the area so Carson is the better choice or too much momentum and therefore it will be built (which would mean he sees a Rams-Raiders combo). I'm pretty sure it's the latter, but it just isn't totally clear.

****

My only thoughts on the above: I can't believe that Jacksonville thing is still being mentioned. It's not happening. Even if the owners really are talking about it, it's not happening. That would have to be years away. The stadium plan will be off the table, and likely never brought back. St. Louis will be a dead NFL market at that point. Maybe floating the possibility of it is the way the owners will make themselves feel okay about relocating out of St. Louis. I don't know. But that isn't happening.

[Still MIGHTY]

Yes, there is some emotion in play. No, I am not the only person who believes this, nor is that opinion only one found in St. Louis.

Of all the things to potentially target me for emotion on, that is the one you're going with?

At that point, can you admit that you're prejudging every thing I say in this thread with the idea that I'm a homer and there's very little validity to any of it? (This is what I meant about being shouted down earlier, Goth.)

My goodness.

Have you looked at it as maybe you shouting up at us rather than us shouting down at you?

[Gothamite]

(This is what I meant about being shouted down earlier, Goth.)

You are the one who called an opposing viewpoint "disagreeable" only because it disagreed with yours. Once you get personal, people will react badly.

[STL FANATIC]

(This is what I meant about being shouted down earlier, Goth.)

You are the one who called an opposing viewpoint "disagreeable" only because it disagreed with yours. Once you get personal, people will react badly.

Crap. I think I'm just a victim of my own ignorance.

I thought disagreeable meant "able to be disagreed with."

It doesn't.

/tailbetweenlegs