NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[theSLVRBCK]

MLS? Won't happen. They're set right now with the new NYC club.

The NASL, on the other hand, is very possible.

I agree, but we are talking about at least 2016 her. But if I was a betting man, my money would also be on an NASL franchise.

And the Jaguars/London nonsense thickens ... sigh. LINK

I still don't think this is any kind of indication that there is a NFL forthcoming full time in London as I just can not see ti working on a full time basis, wheter it be the Jaguars, the Bills, or even an expansion franchise.

My interest int his comes on the homefront, where Khan has purchased a large chunk of real estate on the riverbank that he wants to develop in an unknown capacity. There are heavy rumors circulating of interest in Jacksonville bringing a pro level soccer club to the city. With Khan having a heavy hand in the premier league, I think this further expands on that idea that Khan may play a part in eventually securing a MLS team for Jacksonville.

Bleacher Report could tell me the sky is blue and I wouldn't believe them. That site is less credible than my dead grandfather is when it comes to up to sporting information.

That was just the link I grabbed, it has been reported by many sources, some are even credible.

[McCall]

And the Jaguars/London nonsense thickens ... sigh. LINK

I still don't think this is any kind of indication that there is a NFL forthcoming full time in London as I just can not see ti working on a full time basis, wheter it be the Jaguars, the Bills, or even an expansion franchise.

My interest int his comes on the homefront, where Khan has purchased a large chunk of real estate on the riverbank that he wants to develop in an unknown capacity. There are heavy rumors circulating of interest in Jacksonville bringing a pro level soccer club to the city. With Khan having a heavy hand in the premier league, I think this further expands on that idea that Khan may play a part in eventually securing a MLS team for Jacksonville.

Bleacher Report could tell me the sky is blue and I wouldn't believe them. That site is less credible than my dead grandfather is when it comes to up to sporting information.

I always find his twitter updates to be both accurate and insightful.

[STL FANATIC]

I also doubt whether the taxpayers will let him, especially after their "Screw St. Louis!" tax fit a couple years back.

You reference this a lot, and I know something happened, but I wasn't living in St. Louis at the time and am not totally familiar with what it entails. Do you have more details on this?

[IceCap]

The Missouri voters slashed St. Louis' budget to the bone. Needless to say they probably shouldn't waste what they do have on SPORTS!

[STL FANATIC]

Sure, but Missouri doesn't operate the St. Louis budget. St. Louis like any city has their own budget. So that's why I'm looking for details. What funding sources from the state were cut?

[STL FANATIC]

Okay, so I figured out what you guys were talking about I'm pretty sure, and it's much adieu about nothing.

In November of 2010 the state voted on Proposition A which concerned city earnings taxes. Only St. Louis and Kansas City had such taxes. The proposition restricted new earnings taxes in the state and required St. Louis and Kansas City to hold votes every five years to approve or repeal their existing earnings tax.

The proposition passed.

St. Louis put their earnings tax on the ballot in April 2011. Voters approved the earnings tax by a nearly 9:1 ratio.

So unless you guys are talking about something else, there's been no loss of funding and is no imminent threat of losing funding (unless voter opinion has changed dramatically in the past two years or does so in the next three).

And if that's indeed what you were talking about, that would seem to be a pretty important discovery as it's often been cited here as a reason why St. Louis couldn't afford to keep the Rams.

Now, I'm not suggesting St. Louis has a lot of free cash. There aren't many municipalities who can say that. But St. Louis's budget is pretty stable. We don't operate as a broke city. We're not cutting civil services. Etc. Etc.

http://www.occasiona...net.org/?p=5101

http://www.kctv5.com...sily-11-02-2010

http://www.stltoday....6a726f9184.html

[rams80]

There's no chance of increased funding either though.

[STL FANATIC]

There's no chance of increased funding either though.

There's a lot of ways to create new funding. Like I said, I expect a lot of it to come from "tourist taxes".

Additionally, as I read through what the measure really said, it wasn't quite the attack on St. Louis it was made out to be here. State voters didn't want to be taxed on their earnings. They weren't trying to keep money away from St. Louis.

And again, St. Louis actually APPROVED the tax.

So it's a bit of a leap to assume any and all new funding sources would be squashed by voters.

[rams80]

LOL tourist taxes to pay for a team that never tried to cultivate a fanbase outside of St. Louis.

[STL FANATIC]

Well they are now.

But also I don't really know why that's funny. You source of funding doesn't have to be related to the recipient.

Besides, what about all those Packers and Bears fans that come to town?

[CubsFanBudMan]

On CBSSports.com just now, I read the Raiders want an $800 million, 50,000-seat stadium near the current site.

Team pays $300M, "hoping" NFL pays $200M, and $300M TBD.

Capacity number was jarring to me, but apparently the Raiders are using tarps on Mount Davis this year to reduce capacity to 53,000 anyway.

(I would have brought the link but I honestly figured it'd already be here. Sorry.)

[buckeye]

http://tracking.si.com/2013/07/15/raiders-new-stadium-800-million-seating-capacity-small/?sct=hp_t2_a3

"The Oakland Raiders want to build a 50,000-seat stadium after commissioning a study and determining that capacity fits their needs, The Oakland Tribune reported on Monday."

[Mac the Knife]

Notice he didn't say "losing money." "Deficit spending" could mean a whole lot of things. Honestly though, the solution is to let the A's go to San Jose, then rip apart Alameda and rebuild it Soldier Field-style while the Raiders play in Santa Clara for a year. It'd cost less than $800 million, give the Raiders exactly what they want, and give Raider fans some continuity.

[The_Admiral]

I agree with most of that, but I hate the notion of the A's having to go to San Jose. What about they tear down the Oakland Coliseum, share Santa Clara, build a new place for the A's on the Coliseum site, and then worry about the Raiders later?

And no, nothing should ever be done "Soldier Field-style."

[dfwabel]

I agree with most of that, but I hate the notion of the A's having to go to San Jose. What about they tear down the Oakland Coliseum, share Santa Clara, build a new place for the A's on the Coliseum site, and then worry about the Raiders later?

And no, nothing should ever be done "Soldier Field-style."

There are other sites in which a new A's Stadium could be build in Oakland, namely the Howard Terminal at the Port of Oakland.

[bosrs1]

I agree with most of that, but I hate the notion of the A's having to go to San Jose. What about they tear down the Oakland Coliseum, share Santa Clara, build a new place for the A's on the Coliseum site, and then worry about the Raiders later?

And no, nothing should ever be done "Soldier Field-style."

Well for one the A's don't want to be at the Coliseum site anymore. It's not a good site for baseball. MLB and the A's want to be downtown, preferably downtown San Jose and have already told Oakland repeatedly that the Coliseum site is a non-starter.

As for the Raiders, they still have no clue how the city will come up with it's $300-$400 million commitment to make this NFL plan work, especially with the city still paying $20 million annually to payoff the last stadium expansion for the Raiders at the current Coliseum (you know the expansion the Raiders didn't end up needing in the first place and are now tarping off this year). And for the Raiders part I'm not sure they know where they'd come up with $300 million in private funding either. Their owners are not as rich as the Niners, nor can they guarantee revenue streams like the Niners could.

There are other sites in which a new A's Stadium could be build in Oakland, namely the Howard Terminal at the Port of Oakland.

Howard Terminal is going to cost $700 million to build on bare minimum. And the A's are neither interested nor willing to pony up any private money to build there as of now.

[The_Admiral]

The Raiders are hugely influential and enjoy slavish devotion yet have no money. Are they the indie-est team in sports?

[bosrs1]

The Raiders are hugely influential and enjoy slavish devotion yet have no money. Are they the indie-est team in sports?

I think what we're seeing is that the Raiders really aren't that popular as a football team particularly in the Bay Area. What they are popular as, is a merchandising brand for thugs and the like. But their low team value in the recent Forbes lists, the fact the don't have a majority of fans in any Bay Area County (even Alameda Co.), and the fact they've now had to shrink their current and future stadia all belay the fact the Raiders really aren't all that "big" of a team where they are now.

[STL FANATIC]

If the Raiders can't afford (which is different from don't want) to put money into it, and they're not sure where the public funds, on which the NFL funds are dependent, will come from, does this project—or any other Raiders stadium project—even have a chance?

That doesn't seem like a viable or sustainable situation. And that might be true anywhere. In LA their stadium would be paid for, but they might have to sell part of the team (which if they're truly cash-strapped is maybe a positive), but can they afford the relocation fees?

Are the Raiders in a situation where they either stay put in a crummy stadium or must be sold?

----------

On a Rams note, here's a freaking novel written with the thesis that the Rams are going nowhere. The guy who wrote it gets pretty solid info, but he started as a fan before making the transition to journalist, and his writing skills (or editing at least) aren't the best. So take those things into account. Also, as I implied, it's an awfully long read, be prepared for that.

I'm not posting to present it as fact or a piece of great journalism. I'm quite sure there are counter points to many of his points.

But if you're looking to understand why folks like me have so much confidence that the Rams are staying in STL, this more or less encompasses all the elements of that case.

http://www.101sports.com/2013/07/15/rams-stadium-and-relocation-prospects-not-as-they-seem/

[Island_Style]

The Raiders are hugely influential and enjoy slavish devotion yet have no money. Are they the indie-est team in sports?

I think what we're seeing is that the Raiders really aren't that popular as a football team particularly in the Bay Area. What they are popular as, is a merchandising brand for thugs and the like. But their low team value in the recent Forbes lists, the fact the don't have a majority of fans in any Bay Area County (even Alameda Co.), and the fact they've now had to shrink their current and future stadia all belay the fact the Raiders really aren't all that "big" of a team where they are now.

Power of brand, I guess. People wear the hat because of it's look but don't really care the team exist. What other teams are like that?