NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[bosrs1]

Well looking like San Diego wasn’t the problem. The plan to build San Diego State a new 35,000 seat stadium (expandable to 55,000+), appears headed to victory on election night. This could have been the Chargers had Spanos truly wanted a stadium in San Diego, rather than that half assed self sabotaging mess downtown the Dolts put on the ballot in 2014.

 

 

Hell if they ever decide to correct their mistake in moving to LA, this could still be theirs.

[BBTV]

55k is still small for NFL, but even day 1 at 35k are they going to build it with NFL locker rooms and other stuff that would be needed if the nfl eventually came back?

[TBGKon]

2 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

55k is still small for NFL, but even day 1 at 35k are they going to build it with NFL locker rooms and other stuff that would be needed if the nfl eventually came back?

55k is small for the NFL, but the way things are with broadcast rights and home viewing i feel like you might see slightly smaller NFL stadiums in the next era of construction.

[bosrs1]

2 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

55k is still small for NFL, but even day 1 at 35k are they going to build it with NFL locker rooms and other stuff that would be needed if the nfl eventually came back?

 

55k is the perfect size for San Diego and about what the Murph was for decades before the ill advised 90’s expansion. As for locker rooms, the nitty gritty hasn’t been ironed out yet, but I don’t imagine they’re going to skimp after SDSU having to endure decades of SDCCU Stadium’s visitor locker room. 

[Mac the Knife]

This doesn't fall under the relocation category, but it's a paraphrasing of a fun story told in the latest episode of my favorite podcast, "Good Seats Still Available..."

 

As is well known by football fans, when Lamar Hunt's efforts to buy either the Chicago Cardinals or an expansion franchise for the Dallas market was rebuffed by the NFL, he gathered together a group of other would-be team owners and formed the American Football League. The NFL, meanwhile, suddenly got interested in Dallas itself, with most owners wanting to put a team in the market to try and bury Hunt.

 

One owner who didn't want a team in Dallas? George Preston Marshall, who as Washington's owner operated the most southern team in the NFL and thus essentially had the entire southern United States as "his" market. A Dallas franchise would threaten his stranglehold as he saw it, and consequently he opposed it.

 

Failing to convince Hunt to abandon his plans and award him a Dallas franchise in the NFL, the league instead picked a friend of Lamar's, Clint Murchison, as a prospective Dallas franchise owner. Back in those days an expansion of the league had to be by unanimous vote however, and as such Marshall said he'd veto any Dallas expansion.

 

So how did Murchison's proposed team, now known as the Dallas Cowboys, come to be? Murchison bought the publishing rights to "Hail To The Redskins," the theme song which had for decades been used by (but not owned by) Marshall and his team. Murchison simply told Marshall, "You can veto my franchise, but when you do? I'll terminate the licensing agreement you had with the previous owner for the song and you won't be able to use it anymore."

 

POOF! The Dallas Cowboys were born

[MadmanLA]

George Preston Marshall deserves to be in the "Worst Owners" thread...not only he was a racist piece of :censored:, but his team was only forced to integrate (the last NFL team to do so) because they wouldn't have been allowed to play at then-DC Stadium if he didn't conform.

[Wings]

Oh the long timed business tradition of blackmail. 

[Gothamite]

2 hours ago, Wings said:

Oh the long timed business tradition of blackmail. 

 

That’s not really the right word.  

 

It’s not blackmail for a propriety owner to put conditions for use on a lease.

[Wings]

48 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

That’s not really the right word.  

 

It’s not blackmail for a propriety owner to put conditions for use on a lease.

 

My bad. I'm sorry, I should've been more specific in my post. I was referring to Mac's post about the Washington & Dallas. Also I should've posted it as a time honored business tradition of blackmail. 

[Mac the Knife]

7 hours ago, Wings said:

My bad. I'm sorry, I should've been more specific in my post. I was referring to Mac's post about the Washington & Dallas. Also I should've posted it as a time honored business tradition of blackmail. 

 

See, I wouldn't term that as 'blackmail.'  I'd term that as a combination of (i) being extremely intelligent, coupled with (ii) applying leverage.  "Blackmail" is a more sinister term than I think applies here; Murchison, truth be told, wasn't hell-bent on getting the Cowboys up and running.  The NFL approached him, he wasn't their first choice, and he was a good friend of a guy he'd be competing head-to-head with in the market in Lamar Hunt.  But it became known he had been the one approached, and he wasn't about to let things fall through and cause him embarrassment - particularly at the hands of one man.  So he gained an advantage over that man, and leveraged it, persuading him to vote for approval.  If anything, it gives me a new level of respect for Clint Murchison.

[B-Rich]

23 hours ago, Mac the Knife said:

This doesn't fall under the relocation category, but it's a paraphrasing of a fun story told in the latest episode of my favorite podcast, "Good Seats Still Available..."

 

As is well known by football fans, when Lamar Hunt's efforts to buy either the Chicago Cardinals or an expansion franchise for the Dallas market was rebuffed by the NFL, he gathered together a group of other would-be team owners and formed the American Football League. The NFL, meanwhile, suddenly got interested in Dallas itself, (2) with most owners wanting to put a team in the market to try and bury Hunt.

 

One owner who didn't want a team in Dallas? George Preston Marshall, who as Washington's owner operated the most southern team in the NFL and thus essentially had the entire southern United States as "his" market. A Dallas franchise would threaten his stranglehold as he saw it, and consequently he opposed it.

 

(1) Failing to convince Hunt to abandon his plans and award him a Dallas franchise in the NFL, the league instead picked a friend of Lamar's, Clint Murchison, as a prospective Dallas franchise owner. Back in those days an expansion of the league had to be by unanimous vote however, and as such Marshall said he'd veto any Dallas expansion.

 

So how did Murchison's proposed team, now known as the Dallas Cowboys, come to be? Murchison bought the publishing rights to "Hail To The Redskins," the theme song which had for decades been used by (but not owned by) Marshall and his team. Murchison simply told Marshall, "You can veto my franchise, but when you do? I'll terminate the licensing agreement you had with the previous owner for the song and you won't be able to use it anymore."

 

POOF! The Dallas Cowboys were born

 

Correct and true, but a little out of order, chronologically.  

 

The NFL first decided to expand to Dallas, and offered the franchise to Hunt, who, to his credit, didn't leave the other AFL owners in the lurch (as Max WInter did when he took the NFL's offer to switch his Minnesota franchise from the AFL to the NFL).  After that, the NFL decided to go head to head in Dallas and awarded the Dallas franchise to Murchison.

 

The NFL had also announced it was expanding into Dallas to slug it out with Hunt himself. Before doing so, they had offered Lamar the opportunity to defect. Had he, Ralph Wilson noted, the AFL 'would have been stillborn'... When Hunt refused, the NFL awarded the Dallas Cowboys to Clint Murchison and the war was on.

-- The League: The Rise and Decline of the NFL by David Harris, p. 104. 

 

Mac, if you don't have a copy of this, you should get one. I know you would enjoy it.

 

 

[Mac the Knife]

24 minutes ago, B-Rich said:

Correct and true, but a little out of order, chronologically.  

 

The NFL first decided to expand to Dallas, and offered the franchise to Hunt, who, to his credit, didn't leave the other AFL owners in the lurch (as Max WInter did when he took the NFL's offer to switch his Minnesota franchise from the AFL to the NFL).  After that, the NFL decided to go head to head in Dallas and awarded the Dallas franchise to Murchison.

 

The NFL had also announced it was expanding into Dallas to slug it out with Hunt himself. Before doing so, they had offered Lamar the opportunity to defect. Had he, Ralph Wilson noted, the AFL 'would have been stillborn'... When Hunt refused, the NFL awarded the Dallas Cowboys to Clint Murchison and the war was on.

-- The League: The Rise and Decline of the NFL by David Harris, p. 104. 

 

Mac, if you don't have a copy of this, you should get one. I know you would enjoy it.

 

Well, the chronology may be off, but yeah, the story's pretty straight.  And FWIW, I'd never have blamed Max Winter for what he did (though had I been Winter, I'd surely have been more "straight up" about it).  There are a few things regarding the story I hadn't been aware of - for example, that Hunt and Murchison were actually pretty close friends, and looked at the Texans-Cowboys rivalry as little more than friendly competition with no truly significant consequence (at least, as far as their wallets were concerned).  They were both loaded as all get out, and any losses they sustained were mere drops in their buckets.

 

I've heard another permutation of this that Hunt and Bud Adams were offered expansion teams, but by the time the NFL had realized Hunt & Co. were serious, Lamar had felt a need to keep his word to the others in "The Foolish Club."  An admirable trait in a man I always viewed as admirable.  He also, like Art Rooney Sr., was really soft-spoken, humble, and genuinely nice.  I had the privilege of meeting both of them (Mr. Rooney on several different occasions, Mr. Hunt but once) in my late teens/early 20's, and they impressed me with their mere demeanor.  That's not something most people do for me.

 

As for the book recommendation, I appreciate it, but it's gonna hafta taka place at the bottom of a pile that's currently five deep (and one of which, oddly, is a bio of Lamar Hunt)... which at the rate I'm going, means I'll get around to reading it sometime in, oh, mid-2019... 

[LMU]

Welp, Plan B time for da Raidahhhhzzzzzz.

 

 

[B-Rich]

14 hours ago, LMU said:

Welp, Plan B time for da Raidahhhhzzzzzz.

 

More on the story:

 

The office of the city attorney disclosed the lawsuit Tuesday in a news release, stating it is seeking “a resolution for the maximum amount of damages available” that include lost revenue. The lawsuit alleges that when the NFL approved the Raiders relocation in March of 2017 by a 31-1 vote, the league and the Raiders violated antitrust laws by “boycotting Oakland.”

 

The press release, however states that the lawsuit is not asking to block the Raiders move to Las Vegas nor keep the franchise in Oakland.

 

“The defendants brazenly violated federal antitrust law and the league’s own policies when they boycotted Oakland as a host city,” Oakland city attorney Barbara J. Parker said in the statement. “The Raiders’ illegal move lines the pockets of NFL owners and sticks Oakland, its residents, taxpayers and dedicated fans with the bill. The purpose of this lawsuit is to hold the defendants accountable and help to compensate Oakland for the damages the defendants’ unlawful actions have caused and will cause to the people of Oakland.”

 

Link to Full Article

 

"Illegal move?" "Boycotted?" Asking the court to award the city with "the maximum amount of damages available" (as the news release noted)?   This really seems like a reach for the City of Oakland, and a bit of a joke.

 

Basically,

 

City of Oakland: "Oh you're leaving? Well GIVE US A BUNCH OF MONEY!!!"

Raiders: Our lease-- our only connection to you legally-- is up.  We honored our part of the agreement and paid all of the lease payments...Why should we give you a bunch of money?

City of Oakland: Because you and your buddies in the NFL are a bunch of money-grubbing BAD PEOPLE!!

[The_Admiral]

I don't care if it's a reach, the city of Oakland is more sympathetic than Mark Davis.

[dfwabel]

42 minutes ago, B-Rich said:

 

More on the story:

 

The office of the city attorney disclosed the lawsuit Tuesday in a news release, stating it is seeking “a resolution for the maximum amount of damages available” that include lost revenue. The lawsuit alleges that when the NFL approved the Raiders relocation in March of 2017 by a 31-1 vote, the league and the Raiders violated antitrust laws by “boycotting Oakland.”

 

The press release, however states that the lawsuit is not asking to block the Raiders move to Las Vegas nor keep the franchise in Oakland.

 

“The defendants brazenly violated federal antitrust law and the league’s own policies when they boycotted Oakland as a host city,” Oakland city attorney Barbara J. Parker said in the statement. “The Raiders’ illegal move lines the pockets of NFL owners and sticks Oakland, its residents, taxpayers and dedicated fans with the bill. The purpose of this lawsuit is to hold the defendants accountable and help to compensate Oakland for the damages the defendants’ unlawful actions have caused and will cause to the people of Oakland.”

 

Link to Full Article

 

"Illegal move?" "Boycotted?" Asking the court to award the city with "the maximum amount of damages available" (as the news release noted)?   This really seems like a reach for the City of Oakland, and a bit of a joke.

 

Basically,

 

City of Oakland: "Oh you're leaving? Well GIVE US A BUNCH OF MONEY!!!"

Raiders: Our lease-- our only connection to you legally-- is up.  We honored our part of the agreement and paid all of the lease payments...Why should we give you a bunch of money?

City of Oakland: Because you and your buddies in the NFL are a bunch of money-grubbing BAD PEOPLE!!

There's a fairly important term which isn't in the USA Today story or most others from yesterday: "Raiders Loans Receivable".

 

Apparently, the city, county, Coliseum board make loans to the Raiders for the training facility and other relocation costs back in 1996. The Coliseum board's audits make mention of these two loans which aren't due as long as the Raiders play at the Coliseum since rent, concession and parking revenue act as repayment. As of 2015, the balance of the Operations Loan was $126M and the Training Facility Loan was $23M, but they (city, county, Authority) don't know how to get that money back, so the city is at least filing a lawsuit.

[bosrs1]

Bigger question sportswise of course is with Davis on record as saying they'll likely bail early if the suit happened, and they're also on record as saying Sam Boyd in Las Vegas won't work as a temporary venue so they can't move to Vegas early... then where do the Raiders play in 2019.

 

Levis Stadium in Santa Clara would make sense, but both Raiders and Niners ownership have stated they don't want the Raiders there, even for one year.

 

Stanford and Cal both reportedly don't want the hassle, and in Cal's case neither do the city and neighbors whom are very powerful in any discussions around Memorial Stadium.

 

San Jose's Spartan Stadium is too old and decrepit for much the same reason Sam Boyd doesn't work. And the Giants reportedly don't need the money or want the disruption football would cause to their ballpark. Which pretty much eliminates the Bay Area as an option, which has been confirmed by a couple of media sources so far with contacts in the Raider org. 

 

LA makes no sense given the struggles both teams have had, but particularly the former San Diego Chargers have had, in garnering a fan base. They don't need a team with ties to LA coming in and re-energizing those ties while both teams are trying to sell overpriced PSLs to the new Inglewood Stadium. 

 

Reno has been floated as an idea being in Nevada, but it's again an older undersized and under amentitied college venue. Not to mention Reno is a tiny city to be hosting the NFL even short term. 

 

San Antonio has a NFL capable venue that has hosted homeless teams before with the Saints. And San Antonio is always seemingly willing to show it wants the NFL, but it's also very far from any Raiders fan base, and of course is in Jerry Jones' backyard which could be a knock against it. 

 

Portland has been suggested by Jason Cole formerly of ESPN and with FanSided... but where in Portland would make any sense?

 

Phoenix and Seattle have been suggested as well, as a shack up with their respective NFL teams, but one has to wonder at the benefit for the home team of dividing interest, particularly for the Cardinals at a time when they're pathetically bad on field.

 

And lastly San Diego is in pretty much every discussion since the former Chargers former home is sitting unused and is still NFL ready having been maintained by the SDSU Aztecs the last two years. Only real impediment here would possibly be the Spanos AFC Team of Carson who delusionally still think they have some claim to San Diego. Though they're also not too popular in the NFL clubhouse due to their inept bungling of their move to Los Angeles and subsequent undercutting of the Rams. 

[dfwabel]

17 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

Bigger question sportswise of course is with Davis on record as saying they'll likely bail early if the suit happened, and they're also on record as saying Sam Boyd in Las Vegas won't work as a temporary venue so they can't move to Vegas early... then where do the Raiders play in 2019.

 

Levis Stadium in Santa Clara would make sense, but both Raiders and Niners ownership have stated they don't want the Raiders there, even for one year.

 

Stanford and Cal both reportedly don't want the hassle, and in Cal's case neither do the city and neighbors whom are very powerful in any discussions around Memorial Stadium.

 

San Jose's Spartan Stadium is too old and decrepit for much the same reason Sam Boyd doesn't work. And the Giants reportedly don't need the money or want the disruption football would cause to their ballpark. Which pretty much eliminates the Bay Area as an option, which has been confirmed by a couple of media sources so far with contacts in the Raider org. 

 

LA makes no sense given the struggles both teams have had, but particularly the former San Diego Chargers have had, in garnering a fan base. They don't need a team with ties to LA coming in and re-energizing those ties while both teams are trying to sell overpriced PSLs to the new Inglewood Stadium. 

 

Reno has been floated as an idea being in Nevada, but it's again an older undersized and under amentitied college venue. Not to mention Reno is a tiny city to be hosting the NFL even short term. 

 

San Antonio has a NFL capable venue that has hosted homeless teams before with the Saints. And San Antonio is always seemingly willing to show it wants the NFL, but it's also very far from any Raiders fan base, and of course is in Jerry Jones' backyard which could be a knock against it. 

 

Portland has been suggested by Jason Cole formerly of ESPN and with FanSided... but where in Portland would make any sense?

 

Phoenix and Seattle have been suggested as well, as a shack up with their respective NFL teams, but one has to wonder at the benefit for the home team of dividing interest, particularly for the Cardinals at a time when they're pathetically bad on field.

 

And lastly San Diego is in pretty much every discussion since the former Chargers former home is sitting unused and is still NFL ready having been maintained by the SDSU Aztecs the last two years. Only real impediment here would possibly be the Spanos AFC Team of Carson who delusionally still think they have some claim to San Diego. Though they're also not too popular in the NFL clubhouse due to their inept bungling of their move to Los Angeles and subsequent undercutting of the Rams. 

Berkeley has two major issues; one old and one newer.

Older: The Raiders once had a contract for three years to play preseason games there in the mid 70's.  Neither the city nor the campus was prepared for the issues related to both parking and security.  As a result, the Berkeley City Council placed a 10% tax on all tickets which was to be due 30 days after the event.  Al Davis sued on the grounds that the city could not tax the event which was on state property.  Davis won an injunction, but it was reversed in Appeals Court Oakland Raiders v. City of Berkeley (l976).  Davis paid the tax and left.

Source: http://berkeleycitizensaction.org/?page_id=426

 

Newer: In 2010, the University and the PHA, the neighborhood group north of Memorial Stadium, agreed to certain conditions until 2025 in exchange to the renovation of the stadium.

Here are the key conditions:

Quote

 A continuation of historic commitments by UC Berkeley chancellors to prohibit amplified music concerts and National Football League games at the stadium.

• Subject to further review under the California Environmental Quality Act, a cap on “capacity” events — programs attended by more than 10,000 spectators, exclusive of Cal Bears games and graduation events — of nine such events in any three-year period, with no more than four occurring in any one-year time frame, of which no more than two may exceed 30,000 spectators, through 2025.

 

[leopard88]

41 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

Bigger question sportswise of course is with Davis on record as saying they'll likely bail early if the suit happened, and they're also on record as saying Sam Boyd in Las Vegas won't work as a temporary venue so they can't move to Vegas early... then where do the Raiders play in 2019.

 

Levis Stadium in Santa Clara would make sense, but both Raiders and Niners ownership have stated they don't want the Raiders there, even for one year.

 

Stanford and Cal both reportedly don't want the hassle, and in Cal's case neither do the city and neighbors whom are very powerful in any discussions around Memorial Stadium.

 

San Jose's Spartan Stadium is too old and decrepit for much the same reason Sam Boyd doesn't work. And the Giants reportedly don't need the money or want the disruption football would cause to their ballpark. Which pretty much eliminates the Bay Area as an option, which has been confirmed by a couple of media sources so far with contacts in the Raider org. 

 

LA makes no sense given the struggles both teams have had, but particularly the former San Diego Chargers have had, in garnering a fan base. They don't need a team with ties to LA coming in and re-energizing those ties while both teams are trying to sell overpriced PSLs to the new Inglewood Stadium. 

 

Reno has been floated as an idea being in Nevada, but it's again an older undersized and under amentitied college venue. Not to mention Reno is a tiny city to be hosting the NFL even short term. 

 

San Antonio has a NFL capable venue that has hosted homeless teams before with the Saints. And San Antonio is always seemingly willing to show it wants the NFL, but it's also very far from any Raiders fan base, and of course is in Jerry Jones' backyard which could be a knock against it. 

 

Portland has been suggested by Jason Cole formerly of ESPN and with FanSided... but where in Portland would make any sense?

 

Phoenix and Seattle have been suggested as well, as a shack up with their respective NFL teams, but one has to wonder at the benefit for the home team of dividing interest, particularly for the Cardinals at a time when they're pathetically bad on field.

 

And lastly San Diego is in pretty much every discussion since the former Chargers former home is sitting unused and is still NFL ready having been maintained by the SDSU Aztecs the last two years. Only real impediment here would possibly be the Spanos AFC Team of Carson who delusionally still think they have some claim to San Diego. Though they're also not too popular in the NFL clubhouse due to their inept bungling of their move to Los Angeles and subsequent undercutting of the Rams. 

 

It will be very hard to convince me that playing in Sam Boyd Stadium next season is not preferable to sharing a stadium in another team's city or playing in San Diego or San Antonio.

 

I'm sure they want to make a splash when they arrive by moving straight into the new stadium, but all of the other options sound as viable as the Oilers laying over in Memphis on their trip to Nashville.

[bosrs1]

17 minutes ago, leopard88 said:

 

It will be very hard to convince me that playing in Sam Boyd Stadium next season is not preferable to sharing a stadium in another team's city or playing in San Diego or San Antonio.

 

I'm sure they want to make a splash when they arrive by moving straight into the new stadium, but all of the other options sound as viable as the Oilers laying over in Memphis on their trip to Nashville.

 

Big difference between the Raiders and Oilers situations though, the Raiders have a huge SoCal fan base. It has showed up every year in San Diego when the Raiders played there. There's no reason to think it won't show up again should they play 7 games in San Diego in 2019. And it makes them more accessible to their new Vegas fan base too then they are now. 

 

Boyd just isn't NFL capable. It's got no boxes, too few seats (both attendance wise and actual seats (it's all benches)), and it'll be hot as hell until October. Never mind the behind the scenes stuff including size of the locker room, support facilities, lighting, etc... Boyd is nothing but a glorified high school grandstand.