duma

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

Recommended Posts

We. Are. Farmers.

Dum da dum dum dum dum dumb

:upside:

I may like that jingle, but it better not be overused if the stadium is built.

It's a funky design to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian, I'm not as convinced as you are that Jerry Brown will be eager to give AEG the environmental waiver. Trmporary union construction jobs are nice, but that would effectively gut the environmental protection laws (weakened enough by the precedent set the first time).

Not sure that will help him very much with his constituency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the other team, the Chargers seem a likely candidate until you look at the price they'd have to pay to relocate ($500 million) and the Spanos family inability to pay it.

You're mistaken about the amount the Spanos family would have to pay to relocate.

Between February 1st and April 30th of each year through 2020, the Chargers can announce their intention to leave the San Diego market if they pay-off the bonds used to finance expansion of Qualcomm Stadium in 1997. The figure they would currently have to pay is $26 million... not $500 million.

That's according to an Associated Press story posted on NFL.com in December 8, 2010.

Chargers will stay in San Diego for at least one more season

Yes they'd have to pay the pittance to break the lease, but then the Spanos family would have to pay the NFL the difference between the current franchise value (approximately $700 million currently) and the new franchise value after the move to LA which would be upwards of 1.2 billion. So it would be approximately $500 million the Spanos family would be out of pocket after a move. To be fair any other owner would be equally as hit to some extent or another, but the Spanos family in particular are not in a position to absorb such a hefty fee (not if they intend to retain majority ownership).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you have to pay a fee if you move up in market size. I know the Rams had to compensate the league for replacing Los Angeles with St. Louis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you have to pay a fee if you move up in market size. I know the Rams had to compensate the league for replacing Los Angeles with St. Louis.

Then someone might want to tell all the sports broadcasters in SD, because they're all using it as the prime reason the Chargers aren't going anywhere. And it makes sense. By allowing the team to move the NFL would be making the Spanos family in theory $500 mil richer over night. The league then requires they share that windfall with the other 32 teams. Makes even more sense than the Rams having to pay to lessen their value by leaving LA frankly. Problem is that franchise value increase is due to the league on the move, not when they sell the team in the theoretical future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian, I'm not as convinced as you are that Jerry Brown will be eager to give AEG the environmental waiver. Trmporary union construction jobs are nice, but that would effectively gut the environmental protection laws (weakened enough by the precedent set the first time).

Not sure that will help him very much with his constituency.

Here's the problem for Jerry and the environmental lobby: the precedent has already been set. Also, it isn't as if AEG is asking to build in the Ballona Wetlands. We're talking about a downtown site that is zoned for commercial development and has already seen construction of similar structures - arenas, convention center halls, etc. - take place on adjacent parcels.

On top of that, it is the legislature's call. Sure, Brown could attempt to overturn such an exemption, but the legislature would then get the opportunity to override Brown's veto. The indication in Sacramento seems to be that support for the exemption is bipartisan and widespread enough to succeed at such a task. Time will tell.

Perhaps most importantly, Brown is facing significant battles over a host of budgetary cost-cutting measures that he's hoping to successfully navigate through the legislature. A number of people I've spoken to in Sacramento don't see Brown drawing a line in the sand over this stadium-development issue when he has bigger battles on which to spend political capital down the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then someone might want to tell all the sports broadcasters in SD, because they're all using it as the prime reason the Chargers aren't going anywhere.

No offense, but I listen to/watch San Diego sports broadcasters on an almost daily basis and they haven't proven themselves to be the brightest bulbs on the tree when it comes to discussing the issues surrounding AEG's Los Angeles development and the impact it could have on the Chargers' future. Frankly, most of them have come across as misinformed (at best) and woefully behind the curve (at worst) while covering this story. I also believe there's more than a bit of wishful thinking on their part when it comes to trying to picture scenarios under which the San Diego market's NFL franchise would remain in San Diego. After all, they have a vested interest in the team remaining there.

By allowing the team to move the NFL would be making the Spanos family in theory $500 mil richer over night. The league then requires they share that windfall with the other 32 teams. Problem is that franchise value increase is due to the league on the move, not when they sell the team in the theoretical future.

The bottom-line is that the Chargers are an immensely more valuable property operating in a new, state-of-the-art stadium in Los Angeles than they are operating in Qualcomm in San Diego. If allowing the Spanos family time to make good on sharing said windfall with their fellow owners strikes Roger Goodell and other NFL executives as being in the best interests of the NFL, the league won't hesitate to place the Spanos clan on a payment schedule. Hell, we the average, ticket-buying public may never even hear confirmation of such an arrangement until long after it has taken place.

I'm not much of a gambling man, but I'd be willing to wager a rather substantial sum on the Chargers being - at the very least - the first team to relocate to Farmers Field. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if an agreement in principal already exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you have to pay a fee if you move up in market size. I know the Rams had to compensate the league for replacing Los Angeles with St. Louis.

Then someone might want to tell all the sports broadcasters in SD, because they're all using it as the prime reason the Chargers aren't going anywhere. And it makes sense. By allowing the team to move the NFL would be making the Spanos family in theory $500 mil richer over night. The league then requires they share that windfall with the other 32 teams. Makes even more sense than the Rams having to pay to lessen their value by leaving LA frankly. Problem is that franchise value increase is due to the league on the move, not when they sell the team in the theoretical future.

Franchise value of one team goes up: Rest of the league looks better financially.

Franchise value of one team goes down: Rest of the league looks worse financially.

I see a retributive angle in the league getting a percentage of the proceeds of Ram PSL sales once they moved to St. Louis, especially since the league can't flat out block the move. Conversely, I think that the similarly forced sale of a minority stake to Stan Kroenke was an attempt to make up for the loss of Los Angeles by getting Wal Mart money behind the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian, I'm not as convinced as you are that Jerry Brown will be eager to give AEG the environmental waiver. Trmporary union construction jobs are nice, but that would effectively gut the environmental protection laws (weakened enough by the precedent set the first time).

Not sure that will help him very much with his constituency.

Here's the problem for Jerry and the environmental lobby: the precedent has already been set. Also, it isn't as if AEG is asking to build in the Ballona Wetlands. We're talking about a downtown site that is zoned for commercial development and has already seen construction of similar structures - arenas, convention center halls, etc. - take place on adjacent parcels.

On top of that, it is the legislature's call. Sure, Brown could attempt to overturn such an exemption, but the legislature would then get the opportunity to override Brown's veto. The indication in Sacramento seems to be that support for the exemption is bipartisan and widespread enough to succeed at such a task. Time will tell.

Perhaps most importantly, Brown is facing significant battles over a host of budgetary cost-cutting measures that he's hoping to successfully navigate through the legislature. A number of people I've spoken to in Sacramento don't see Brown drawing a line in the sand over this stadium-development issue when he has bigger battles on which to spend political capital down the road.

Minor question regarding Brown. Has he given any signs that he'd think about trying for re-election in 4 years, or would he retire at that point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minor question regarding Brown. Has he given any signs that he'd think about trying for re-election in 4 years, or would he retire at that point?

While he hasn't categorically said that he's a one-term governor this time around, the expectation in Sacramento seems to be that - given the nature of the effort that it is going to take to get the state turned around fiscally - this is Brown's last go-around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I found the link to the story, I'll mention this again. If you suspect a deal is in place, they are positioning the Chargers and Vikings as those teams, especially considering there are mockups that show as much:

http://m.ocregister.com/sports/aeg-286577-nfl-angeles.html

Villlaraigosa on Tuesday confirmed for the first time that he has also met with officials from NFL teams. When pressed to identify those teams, Villaraigosa said, ?I'll say this: I have a team of preference. You guys have actually seen some pictures,? referring to mock photos of Farmers Field that show both the San Diego Chargers and Minnesota Vikings. Both the San Diego and Minnesota franchises along with Jacksonville are considered the leading candidates to relocate to Southern California. Asked specifically if he has had discussions with Minnesota officials, Villaraigossa said, ?I'm getting too far into the weeds. I've answered as many questions as I'm going to.?

Of course, that could just be to put the pressure on those teams to get deals done, too. Still, this is the first I've seen specific targets named.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I found the link to the story, I'll mention this again. If you suspect a deal is in place, they are positioning the Chargers and Vikings as those teams, especially considering there are mockups that show as much:

http://m.ocregister.com/sports/aeg-286577-nfl-angeles.html

Villlaraigosa on Tuesday confirmed for the first time that he has also met with officials from NFL teams. When pressed to identify those teams, Villaraigosa said, ?I'll say this: I have a team of preference. You guys have actually seen some pictures,? referring to mock photos of Farmers Field that show both the San Diego Chargers and Minnesota Vikings. Both the San Diego and Minnesota franchises along with Jacksonville are considered the leading candidates to relocate to Southern California. Asked specifically if he has had discussions with Minnesota officials, Villaraigossa said, ?I'm getting too far into the weeds. I've answered as many questions as I'm going to.?

Of course, that could just be to put the pressure on those teams to get deals done, too. Still, this is the first I've seen specific targets named.

Can't say I'm surprised. From a stadium perspective they're both in fairly easy to extricate situations. And unlike Oakland and Buffalo they don't have owners opposed to moving. And unlike St. Louis and Jacksonville they're not in stadiums that are realistically quite new and very easily updated to placate their owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New? The Rams?

Don't forget that St Louis has to build the Rams a new stadium in 3 years, or they can opt out of the lease. And Missouri's latest ballot proposition strips hundreds of millions of dollars out of the city's coffers, which makes that very unlikely.

So the Rams are similarly poised to move, right around the time that the new LA stadium will be ready.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New? The Rams?

Don't forget that St Louis has to build the Rams a new stadium in 3 years, or they can opt out of the lease. And Missouri's latest ballot proposition strips hundreds of millions of dollars out of the city's coffers, which makes that very unlikely.

So the Rams are similarly poised to move, right around the time that the new LA stadium will be ready.

I consider any stadium that opened in 1995 new. It's not like we're talking about one of the old multipurpose stadiums ala Qualcomm or the Metrodome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only about 15 years old, yes, but it's not like it's ever been a state-of-the-art facility. It has more in common with the Superdome and Metrodome than it does Ford Field or Reliant Stadium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New? The Rams?

Don't forget that St Louis has to build the Rams a new stadium in 3 years, or they can opt out of the lease. And Missouri's latest ballot proposition strips hundreds of millions of dollars out of the city's coffers, which makes that very unlikely.

So the Rams are similarly poised to move, right around the time that the new LA stadium will be ready.

I consider any stadium that opened in 1995 new. It's not like we're talking about one of the old multipurpose stadiums ala Qualcomm or the Metrodome

Read about the lease agreement between St. Louis City/County has with the Rams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only about 15 years old, yes, but it's not like it's ever been a state-of-the-art facility. It has more in common with the Superdome and Metrodome than it does Ford Field or Reliant Stadium.

Additionally, it's one of the oldest stadia in the league. But, yeah, it was a spec stadium built on the cheap. It needs more than a simple renovation to be competitive, and that ignores how the lease gives the Rams a giant "Get Out of Jail Free" card in 3 years to go to a market that trumps anything St. Louis could ever offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New? The Rams?

Don't forget that St Louis has to build the Rams a new stadium in 3 years, or they can opt out of the lease. And Missouri's latest ballot proposition strips hundreds of millions of dollars out of the city's coffers, which makes that very unlikely.

So the Rams are similarly poised to move, right around the time that the new LA stadium will be ready.

I consider any stadium that opened in 1995 new. It's not like we're talking about one of the old multipurpose stadiums ala Qualcomm or the Metrodome

Read about the lease agreement between St. Louis City/County has with the Rams.

Oh I'm well aware of their "top 10" clause. One of the dumbest things a city ever allowed to be put into a team's lease agreement. However in reality to be in the "top 10" all they need is a renovation to their club level, bigger video boards and some stripper poles. Because in reality that's all these new stadiums have on Edward Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now