NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[rams80]

The Falcons and the city of Atlanta have come to a financing agreement for their new stadium. Public funds will be capped at $200 million.

We're in a different era as far as stadium financing goes, and that's why I don't expect the region of St. Louis to have to anti up more than about a third of the cost of their new stadium.

Once the CVC rejects the arbitration, that whole clause is gone and the Rams are in the exact same situation as the Falcons were. Free to explore stadium options where they choose. Like the Falcons, I think they find it near their existing home.

Anyways, my opinion is well-known, but thought the Falcons news added some more context to all the situations.

Except the Falcons were never a serious threat to leave the market. The furthest they may have moved was the suburbs.

[STL FANATIC]

There's no real indications the Rams are a serious threat, either, though.

They just used to be in LA and they've been terrible most of the 18 years in St. Louis, so they feel unstable and people say they're a serious threat.

In truth, the situation isn't a whole lot different from an Atlanta or a Minnesota.

[rams80]

There's no real indications the Rams are a serious threat, either, though.

They just used to be in LA and they've been terrible most of the 18 years in St. Louis, so they feel unstable and people say they're a serious threat.

In truth, the situation isn't a whole lot different from an Atlanta or a Minnesota.

Except Atlanta and Minnesota can get people in the stadium without fielding a 10 win team.

[STL FANATIC]

But could they if entering every season experts predicted they'd win 3 or fewer games? I know it's your favorite sticking point, but the Rams attendance has been fine in St. Louis.

I'm not sitting here telling you it's been incredible and the team has been fully supported through thick and thin. I'm telling you it's been fine and they've received solid support considering the way the franchise has been run.

There are years the attendance probably should have been better, but there are way more years that it's amazing anybody showed up at all. I won't try and paint fan support as a strength, but it's not a weakness of this market either, and thus, not much of a factor.

Again, these stadium situations are actually pretty similar once the arbitration ruling is rejected, and it's fair to anticipate similar resolutions.

[IceCap]

But could they if entering every season experts predicted they'd win 3 or fewer games? I know it's your favorite sticking point, but the Rams attendance has been fine in St. Louis.

I'm not sitting here telling you it's been incredible and the team has been fully supported through thick and thin. I'm telling you it's been fine and they've received solid support considering the way the franchise has been run.

If you're Kroenke though, where would you rather be? A market where fan support is "fine" and by your own admission not a "strength," or a market where you're guaranteed to make money hand over fist just by virtue of the market's size and prestige? Not to mention that a team in LA will be the new hot thing in a city where everyone wants to "be seen" with the hot new thing.

I'm sorry. I really don't have anything against St. Louis, but I don't see how it has an advantage over LA as an NFL market. Which is ultimately why I think the Rams will move. When all is said and done Kroenke's going to go with the more lucrative market. Any other sane businessman would do the same thing.

[STL FANATIC]

1. Fan support has also shown to just be fine in LA. I'm not saying they've proven to be a failure. They had every right to treat the Rams and Raiders the way they did in the 90s. But it's not like they flocked to see bad football either. It will be the hot ticket for a while, but if the team is really bad, even LA isn't going stick with it forever.

2. Every team in the league rakes money in hand over fist. The worst ones in the smallest markets included. The Rams have done it as well as anyone given the favorable lease they operate under currently.

If Stan Kroenke OWNS his own stadium in St. Louis, that profit only gets bigger, and by quite a bit. Yes, he lose some of that profit the first few years paying off the stadium, but Kroenke is a long-term guy. He'd be in the green in no time.

In LA, Kroenke would lease and not own the stadium and under the current proposals (I realize there's been some suggestion this is flexible), he'd need to sell a portion of his team, and not necessarily for market value. Not only does that limit his profits, it doesn't remotely follow the way Kroenke does business. When Kroenke buys into something, it's usually just a matter of time before he buys it all. He likes total control. The LA plans require the opposite.

3. "If you're Kroenke" is a key phrase. Whether their fan bases are slightly better or not, wouldn't Zygi Wilf and Arthur Blank's franchises have the same shot at making all those gobs of cash more in LA (that you suggest is there), too?

Of course they would. But many of their roots and the teams roots are in Minneapolis and Atlanta, so that's where they wanted to keep them. There's no sound reason why this would be different for Stan Kroenke, but the implication continues to be that it is.

You and many before you have said the similar thought—no sane businessman would turn down LA. Except, you know, they all have.

(Note: I appreciate you saying it, but don't feel like you have to say "I don't have anything against St. Louis." There's been hiccups here and there, but I understand this is civil discourse and opinion and speculation. You needn't worry about offending. Certainly not when you take the respectful and reasonable approach you have. I hope that applies to all of us.)

[IceCap]

Fan support has also shown to just be fine in LA. I'm not saying they've proven to be a failure. They had every right to treat the Rams and Raiders the way they did in the 90s. But it's not like they flocked to see bad football either. It will be the hot ticket for a while, but if the team is really bad, even LA isn't going stick with it forever.

No, but in LA subpar fan support would be easier to weather. You'd still get income through tv deals and advertisements. Both of those would be more lucrative in LA then St. Louis.

Every team in the league rakes money in hand over fist. The worst ones in the smallest markets included. The Rams have done it as well as anyone given the favorable lease they operate under currently.

Given how the NFL's revenue mostly comes from tv deals the entire league is poised to make more money if St. Louis gets replaced with LA. LA, given its size, simply means more money for everyone because the tv deals will be bigger.

If Stan Kroenke OWNS his own stadium in St. Louis, that profit only gets bigger, and by quite a bit. Yes, he lose some of that profit the first few years paying off the stadium, but Kroenke is a long-term guy. He'd be in the green in no time.

In LA, Kroenke would lease and not own the stadium and under the current proposals (I realize there's been some suggestion this is flexible), he'd need to sell a portion of his team, and not necessarily for market value. Not only does that limit his profits, it doesn't remotely follow the way Kroenke does business. When Kroenke buys into something, it's usually just a matter of time before he buys it all. He likes total control. The LA plans require the opposite.

There's been more then a suggestion of possibility on the ownership front. I'm pretty sure all ownership requirements on the part of the stadium groups are dead in the water.

You and many before you have said the similar thought—no sane businessman would turn down LA. Except, you know, they all have.

Wilf and Bank never really got to the point where they had to choose. Any hints at a LA move were just scare tactics. I'd go so far as to say that Kroenke is the first NFL owner in a position to seriously consider LA since the Rams and Raiders left. So the statement "everyone's turned down LA" isn't really true.

As for Kroenke being a "St. Louis guy" I haven't seen it. He's from there, and I'm sure he cares for the community, but I haven't seen any evidence that he'll allow those ties to dictate his business dealings. His previous forays into sports ownership certainly didn't involve St. Louis.

Besides it's not like the Rams are a civic institution. They aren't the Cardinals or Blues. You yourself said Rams fan support isn't a "strength" of the market. Kroenke could move the Rams and sleep easy knowing he hadn't ripped the heart out of the community.

[Gothamite]

no sane businessman would turn down LA. Except, you know, they all have.

Not once a stadium deal was in place. You can't really compare the current situation with 2000.

I do wish we had a better insight into the teams' finances. We can only speak of the Panthers and Packers with any authority, though I suspect you may be right about the profits. We just don't know.

When talking about the money, there's also the tendency of many teams to become profitable the way Steinbrenner sold the Yankees to his minority investors; when they cash out, not on an annual basis.

[STL FANATIC]

• No denying that there's more marketability outside of the games in LA than in St. Louis or frankly most markets in the league. That's a valid point.

• A mammoth TV deal was just signed without LA. Re-negotation is always possible, I guess, but it'd be unlikely so quickly. And the size of that deal tells you the NFL isn't hurting for the LA money. Is the league getting more out of LA as leverage for civic help in stadium deals than it would as a chip at the TV bargaining table? That's not answerable with anything concrete, but I think it's a fair question. An idle LA has been and will be a valuable chip for the league, so it's not like they're getting nothing out of a dormant market.

• Ice, you may be right about the ownership front. I haven't seen it, but I haven't tracked it that closely. Still, who would own the stadium? I know the Industry plan involves private financing to get it built, but is it then leased to the tenant or given to the tenant? And assuming it's not truly dead, what about the downtown stadium? I didn't think either involved club ownership, but I'm not sure.

• I'm not 100% on this, but I believe both the Falcons and the Vikings were already to or very nearly to going year-to-year on their current leases. So I'd argue they were in basically the exact same place the Rams are. Still currently in a lease, and approaching the opportunity to end it within a few years. Kroenke can no more or less consider moving than Arthur Blank or Zygi Wilf could.

Now, whether or not they did seriously consider leaving is another story. My hunch is that they didn't and that they only used LA as leverage. Only Wilf, I think, truly took that play. Blank likely just let that possibility float without talking about it. That's what all insiders (including the CVC) report is the case with Kroenke. He's never brought LA up.

• Kroenke has done quite a bit of development in St. Louis and bases his business headquarters there. As for his sports ties, he was nearly successful in bringing the expansion Stallions to St. Louis, and when that failed, he bought 40% of the Rams under the condition they moved to his hometown. At that time he negotiated the right of first refusal if the other 60% was ever sold. So it's not as if he just sprang onto the St. Louis sports scene when the Rams went up for sale a couple of years ago. He's been involved with bringing and keeping NFL football in St. Louis for nearly 20 years.

If he moved the Rams, he wouldn't have to feel as though he ripped away the heart of the city, you're right about that. But he would still be universally hated in his home town. Not everyone cares if they leave, but few would be happy and most would outraged. He'd have to live with being a villain in his hometown. And as for the state in which he does his most development in (I believe—hard to confirm)? Good luck maintaining those key political relationships if he pulls the plug.

So would he devastate the heart of the city? Nah. Would he be able to sleep easy? Only if he's cold as ice.

• Goth, I'd argue that San Diego and Minnesota have both definitively turned down LA. Atlanta didn't care to wait and consider it. I'll allow that San Diego hasn't ruled out a near future move, though, but they certainly aren't in a rush to get there.

[The_Admiral]

I thought Kroenke was headquartered in CoMo. Or does he just live there? Either one would be really weird.

[STL FANATIC]

I thought Kroenke was headquartered in CoMo. Or does he just live there? Either one would be really weird.

Kroenke himself, I'm not 100% clear on. He lives all over. Quick research suggests he was born and raised CoMo but just identifies strongly with St. Louis. He apparently still makes his home in Columbia. But I know he also operates out of Denver a lot and that's where his sports empire is based, I think.

But the business he makes all of his money off of is based in St. Louis.

So I don't want to imply what's not there. That's worth pointing out.

But he does have strong and clear emotional and financial ties to St. Louis.

[Gothamite]

• Goth, I'd argue that San Diego and Minnesota have both definitively turned down LA. Atlanta didn't care to wait and consider it. I'll allow that San Diego hasn't ruled out a near future move, though, but they certainly aren't in a rush to get there.

Fair enough, but I'd argue in response that San Diego is still very much on the table, and Minnesota wasn't any more serious about Los Angeles than the Colts and Jets were. It was just convenient leverage.

[CubsFanBudMan]

L.A. has propped itself up in recent years, but it is still nothing more than a tool to get deals in existing markets. It seems clear that this is the NFL's preference, and why not?

As long as the Chargers and Raiders are in their current situations, I don't see the Rams jumping to the front of the line. The Vikings' lease expired, the Chargers are year-to-year, etc. etc.

Of course, I also don't see L.A. going from zero to two teams, either. Any stadium deal that depends on it to make the numbers work should be dismissed IMO.

It's a game of musical chairs, and the NFL is likely to get all of its chairs filled but one. (My pick: Raiders.)

MLB played its hand too soon with D.C., and now the Rays and A's are stuck in a limbo of leases or territorial rights. But it sure milked plenty of stadiums before that.

The NFL doesn't need L.A., and L.A. doesn't need the NFL after almost two decades, apparently. Sit back and watch the process repeat itself over and over.

[Gothamite]

Of course, I also don't see L.A. going from zero to two teams, either. Any stadium deal that depends on it to make the numbers work should be dismissed IMO.

Which deal would that be?

That's more been our speculation that there are teams which down the road will prefer being the second club in LA to their current situation.

[STL FANATIC]

• Goth, I'd argue that San Diego and Minnesota have both definitively turned down LA. Atlanta didn't care to wait and consider it. I'll allow that San Diego hasn't ruled out a near future move, though, but they certainly aren't in a rush to get there.

Fair enough, but I'd argue in response that San Diego is still very much on the table, and Minnesota wasn't any more serious about Los Angeles than the Colts and Jets were. It was just convenient leverage.

No doubt. But my question becomes (or has been really), what indications are there that the Rams are treating LA any more seriously than Minnesota (or frankly even that seriously)?

That's kind of been my whole point lately. There's been plenty of franchises recently who could have jumped or legitimately considered jumping and at best used it for leverage. The Rams aren't even at the year-to-year portion of their lease yet and haven't ever mentioned LA. But for some reason they're considered a more serious candidate than those others.

I know why there's a lot of people who wouldn't be bothered by a Rams move (the way they would a more traditional locale), but I don't know why they're seen as more likely.

[Gothamite]

Simple - even their defenders admit that the Rams have suffered attendance issues and are at best a distant second in their own market with no real hope of fully closing the gap. That can't be said of any of the other possibly relocating teams.

Add to that the instability of their stadium situation and the unique fiscal handcuffs that the voters of Missouri slapped on the city, and you can understand where the speculation comes from.

[The_Admiral]

I still think a lot of the speculation is wishcasting from people who just don't want to watch telecasts from the Edward Jones Dome anymore. It's right there with the Metrodome and Soldier Field among the NFL's very worst. If the Rams lost 15 games a year with nobody there to see it in a stadium with a half-decent view of the Gateway Arch, no one would care. Unfortunately, they play in pro football's answer to an unfinished basement.

[Gothamite]

How many people outside of St. Louis watch the Rams on television? I'm not aware of them having a sizeable broadcast presence, certainly not enough to influence opinion on this subject.

[The_Admiral]

People whose teams visit the Rams, of course. Seems like the Bears are there fairly often and it's always a tomb.

[rams80]

How many people outside of St. Louis watch the Rams on television? I'm not aware of them having a sizeable broadcast presence, certainly not enough to influence opinion on this subject.

Your average Rams game will be seen in the eastern third of Missouri, and Illinois from Springfield/Chambana on south. Maybe Springfield, Missouri if you ask nicely as well.