NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[smith03]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000259208/article/nfl-adds-third-london-game-in-2014-regular-season

So it looks like we can add the Raiders to the list of teams losing a home game so the NFL can play in London. This along with the Vikings, Rams, Jags, and Falcons in recent years. All teams looking for new stadiums and/or mentioned vis-a-vis LA of course. Oddly the Chargers have continued to avoid this particular predicament?

As a Viking fan, I don't like having lost a home game (though we won so I guess it does not matter), but I would be absolutely livid if I were a season ticket holder. Getting 7 instead of 8 home games would be tolerable if not for the fact that they stick you with the pre-season games. Some people may not think it's a big thing, but getting stuck with 2 preseason would bug me more if I was losing a real game.

you forget the Vikings trip to London was announced after the stadium deal was sign same with the Falcons, of course maybe the NFL makes the choices for which team to play over there farther in advance than what the public is told, Also I believe season ticket holders are given a credit for the game being moved to London (at least Minnesota). the Viking lease at the new stadium sign last week allows up to 6 trips over 30 years to play international games so I don't know that it is all about teams without the newest stadiums.

[hbgoo1975]

And LA gets a rugby team no one cares about? Is that Los Angeles' future?! Like KISS' football team is relevant to LA. I guess we're stuck with the XFL Championship. Maybe every team is trying to screw LA out of the NFL.

[OnWis97]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000259208/article/nfl-adds-third-london-game-in-2014-regular-season

So it looks like we can add the Raiders to the list of teams losing a home game so the NFL can play in London. This along with the Vikings, Rams, Jags, and Falcons in recent years. All teams looking for new stadiums and/or mentioned vis-a-vis LA of course. Oddly the Chargers have continued to avoid this particular predicament?

As a Viking fan, I don't like having lost a home game (though we won so I guess it does not matter), but I would be absolutely livid if I were a season ticket holder. Getting 7 instead of 8 home games would be tolerable if not for the fact that they stick you with the pre-season games. Some people may not think it's a big thing, but getting stuck with 2 preseason would bug me more if I was losing a real game.

you forget the Vikings trip to London was announced after the stadium deal was sign same with the Falcons, of course maybe the NFL makes the choices for which team to play over there farther in advance than what the public is told, Also I believe season ticket holders are given a credit for the game being moved to London (at least Minnesota). the Viking lease at the new stadium sign last week allows up to 6 trips over 30 years to play international games so I don't know that it is all about teams without the newest stadiums.

I did not really realize that, so it's probably not a "punishment" thing as much as it's a "give it to the team with the lowest revenue stadium."

I had not heard that, though I don't really know what that means (I assume they only pay for 9 games instead of 10, but do they get a discount of a game for next year or something?). I don't really know any season ticket holders anymore.

I did not know that either. It surprises me. When I heard "Vikings vs. Steelers in London" my very first thought was "Vikes are the 'home' team" and I'd have bet every penny I own on that...cuz the Dome is about the worst stadium in the league. I suppose the possibility (and it is not a certainty, of course) that the Vikes "host" an international game 1 to 6 times over 30 years is based on the hope that ALL teams have nice stadiums one day, so most teams will be able to host (but you can bet your ass that certain teams like Green Bay and Dallas will never be the home team for this stuff).

I don't really like things that mess with the integrity of the schedule, and this certainly does. There are certain "premier" teams that will never lose a home game (though may lose road games) while others will. Generally, the NFL does a good job with schedule integrity. I guess they just see this as too much of a globalization opportunity to pass up.

[The_Admiral]

I dislike this new trend of rainbow fisking even more than actual fisking.

[smith03]

Under the old lease at the metrodome that end after the 2011 season the Vikings would not have been able to have been the "home" team. My guess is that the home team is based on which teams are able to get their landlord's permission to play a "home" game some other place as much as any other reason.

[dbadefense1990]

Mighty, I disagree. London actually seems to be the new LA more than anything.

The day I hear an NFL owner addressing a city council and demanding millions in taxpayer subsidies for a new stadium, or else it's relocation to London, will be the day I'll believe in this.

[CubsFanBudMan]

CBS Sports' Jason LaCanfora wrote about the Raiders' expiring lease in Oakland today:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason-la-canfora/24077130/examining-the-curious-case-of-the-raiders-stadium-situation

I'm not sure it covers any new ground, but it reinforces that L.A. isn't really a threat right now. It mentions that the league is negotiating with Oakland to extend the lease that expires and that of course one game is going to London.

Sometimes I read these national pieces and feel like they aren't on top of these issues as well as these threads. Sure, they have insiders, but they don't seem to keep up in aggregate like we do. Maybe it's just LaCanfora. His stories always feel like they are lacking something (of course, he's the one who said the NFL wanted to be the first league to put a team in another country... and I'm not sure ever corrected it.)

Anyway, FWIW.

[Rockstar Matt]

I feel like the NFL is just toying with LA, more than usual, I mean. We have TWO good stadium options with one of them ready to break ground as soon as they have a commitment from a team (among other things).

Seriously, why does the NFL not want a team in the second largest market in this country?

[Still MIGHTY]

I feel like the NFL is just toying with LA, more than usual, I mean. We have TWO good stadium options with one of them ready to break ground as soon as they have a commitment from a team (among other things).

Seriously, why does the NFL not want a team in the second largest market in this country?

Because, unfortunately for people like you and me I guess, the NFL is getting along quite well without us.

It doesn't seem like they don't want do more than they don't need to. They don't have an agenda or urgency to do it, because, well, they just don't. The NFL, an NFL owner, and an NFL team will come to Los Angeles when they feel like it. Which obviously isn't now and hasn't been for close to 20 years.

[The_Admiral]

I still think if it ever became a serious matter of the Rams or Jaguars saying they wanted to move to Los Angeles, Goodell would wave it on through. We certainly wouldn't see the roadblocks we saw with the SacKings and Anaheim/Seattle, or the Coyotes and everywhere. Chargers a little less so than those two, Bills less still, and the Raiders only if held at gunpoint, which, knowing L.A. Raiders fans, might not necessarily be a figure of speech.

[henry015]

SPAM

[CubsFanBudMan]

The involvement of the league in the Raiders' lease negotiations might also indicate that they are trying to line everybody up for the same end date. Chargers are year-to-year, Raiders could be soon, same with Rams. I don't think they want to make an L.A. play until they get stadiums for everyone else... or as many as possible by x date.

And it sounds like the NFL wants Chavez Ravine, not either of the two existing options out there. So if all of the owners play nice and don't pull an Al Davis...

[Magnus]

Seriously, why does the NFL not want a team in the second largest market in this country?

As soon as a team moves to L.A., other NFL owners lose their ability to threaten to move there.

[The_Admiral]

It's that brilliant line of thinking that put an NFL team in Jacksonville so that teams could threaten to move to Baltimore.

[CubsFanBudMan]

And London is Jacksonville in this scenario... with less upside IMO, but I'm starting to wonder if it's really a bluff. So I guess the NFL's plan is working...

[STL FANATIC]

It's that brilliant line of thinking that put an NFL team in Jacksonville so that teams could threaten to move to Baltimore.

The difference is that there aren't teams moving other places right now, so it works.

Still, I'm not sure what's true. I think it's a combo of a few things, but I'm not sure how much of what.

• The owners of the teams in an unstable situation (Rams, Raiders, Chargers, and Jags) have shown no desire to move to LA or anywhere else and in some cases have said as much.

• The league is not fully satisfied with the stadium options in LA and is still pursuing a better deal.

• The league may not want any team to move to LA, instead using it as leverage for the teams in the current homes and eventually choosing the expansion route.

[IceCap]

• The owners of the teams in an unstable situation (Rams, Raiders, Chargers, and Jags) have shown no desire to move to LA or anywhere else and in some cases have said as much.

This is a bit of a red herring. Those teams are still trying to get as much as they can out of their current markets before they look elsewhere. Saying "screw you guys, we're running out the clock until we can move to LA" would be counter-productive towards those ends. I'm not the least bit surprised that those teams haven't come out and said "give us what we want or we're moving to LA!" That's not how negations work. Besides, they don't need to make that threat. Everyone knows LA is in play. The teams don't have to bring it up. It's just implied.

I feel like the NFL is just toying with LA, more than usual, I mean. We have TWO good stadium options with one of them ready to break ground as soon as they have a commitment from a team (among other things).

Seriously, why does the NFL not want a team in the second largest market in this country?

Because, unfortunately for people like you and me I guess, the NFL is getting along quite well without us.

The thing is that sooner or latter it's going to give. Sooner or later a team in an unstable arena situation will run into a city council or state government that is either unwilling or unable to spend public funds on SPORTS!

When that happens LA's still going to be there, ripe for the taking. I won't put a time table on when I expect a team in LA, but I do firmly believe it's just a case of "when" and not "if."

Besides Goodell has set some pretty lofty benchmarks for the league in terms of revenue for the years to come. A team (or two) in the country's second largest media market will go a long way towards that end.

[STL FANATIC]

Ice, I get what you're saying, and there's some truth to it. However, San Diego's owner (Spanos is it?) has made it very clear he wants to find a solution in San Diego. He'd have been gone a long time ago if he didn't. I believe there was a good article on MMQB about that a month or so ago.

I've never read it from his lips, but I've seen it implied a number of times the Raiders don't really want to go back to LA if they can avoid it. Or maybe it's the exact reverse I'm thinking of. Maybe the NFL doesn't want the Raiders there. Not sure.

And both Kroenke of St. Louis and Khan of Jacksonville have taken a lot of action in their local market and made vague statements that suggest they're not prioritizing a move to LA. It doesn't mean it's not an option, it just seems likely that they're goal isn't an LA move.

I wouldn't rule out an LA move for any of the four teams, though. All I meant to imply was that there doesn't seem to be any owners in a rush to get there. As you said, they wouldn't say they're considering LA because it'd spoil their leverage. But if they're looking for leverage from LA, it means actually going to LA isn't their first option.

And that's all I really meant.

[Gothamite]

I think that's fair. I don't think any of the four likely relocation candidates are looking to leave their current cities as a first option.

That being said, I don't think any of the four would hesitate to leave those current cities if their situations don't improve.

[bosrs1]

Well speaking of the Chargers and their desire to not leave San Diego, they've apparently reopened their old files from 11 years ago regarding building a new stadium at the current Qualcomm Stadium site and are now making that ther priority location.

And this after the city handed them a stinging defeat by approving and pushing through a standalone convention center expansion that didn't include a covered football stadium in the east village.