NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[LAWeaver]

If the Rams are indeed moving to LA, what's the possibility the team uses the Rose Bowl until Farmers Field is built and the recently-purchased 60-acres will be for team facilities (HQ, practice field, etc.)?

[dfwabel]

If the Rams are indeed moving to LA, what's the possibility the team uses the Rose Bowl until Farmers Field is built and the recently-purchased 60-acres will be for team facilities (HQ, practice field, etc.)?

The Rose Bowl can't be used for practice or team HQ since it'ssurround surrounded by a city golf course. Now, a judge ruled in the city and stadium's favor last week. The maximum number of "large events" they can host annually is 30.

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/sports/20140124/judge-rules-for-pasadena-in-nfl-lawsuit-filed-by-rose-bowl-neighbors

[IceCap]

Here's what I'm thinking: the moment a team relocates to Los Angeles, no matter if it is the Rams, Raiders or Chargers, they will be instantaneously the most hated team in sports.

No.

EDIT- Haha beaten to it by Still MIGHTY

[Gothamite]

If the Rams are indeed moving to LA, what's the possibility the team uses the Rose Bowl until Farmers Field is built and the recently-purchased 60-acres will be for team facilities (HQ, practice field, etc.)?

I think it's a near-certainly that the Rose Bowl would be used for games. But he's right - there's no room for facilities. I'm sure they can rent temporary facilities until their own can be built.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Thanks for the breakdown, Brian. I guess I have the same question as admiral. Is this the absolute best piece of land that has been on the table in the past 5-10 years? Or is it really just a "Kroenke can make it work"? I don't see the NFL settling in any way.

This is the absolute best piece of land, because it's owned by the guy who owns the team, and the team is about to be freed from the remainder of its lease. That can't be said about any of the other proposals that have been on the table.

I guess my point was that every proposal has had red flags of some level, but that hasn't stopped a lot of jumping to conclusions that "you'll see the Rams and Chargers at Farmers Field in 2015." Or, "Look, the new renderings use purple and gold." Until the NFL drops by to essentially quash it and then hindsight is 20/20 and the next sure thing comes along.

Who here has said anything like that? I'll admit, some of us are convinced that St. Louis has failed as a market and LA will have a team again, but that's a cold-eyed analysis of the market and the lease. Wildly jumping to random and contradictory conclusions based on nothing? Who are you talking about?

No need to name names. This isn't personal. That said...

Since you didn't believe me for some reason, here are some quotes from the Farmers Field naming rights deal, from this very thread... in 2011:

$700. Million. Dollars. For a stadium without a team.

Just move the Jaguars already.

***

$700M will go a long way towards getting it built. That's why you should care.

***

I wouldn't be surprised if AEG has already reached an agreement-in-principal with at least one rumored franchise about moving. I just don't see this project having progressed this far - and AEG touting it so publicly - if the major players weren't all-but-certain that it is going to come to fruition.

***

Sure, the city of LA's preference would be for a downtown team. The NFL's might be as well. But I wouldn't underestimate Roski, no matter how much press AEG has received in the last week.

Either way, LA will have a team very soon.

***

Goodell and the NFL's owners are aligning behind AEG.

***

Only question is which two of the wayward teams (Vikings, Chargers, Jags, Bills, Raiders, Rams) will be the first to jump on board with AEG and get the new home they desire.

***

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:

***

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

***

The only way the Rams stay in St Louis is if another NFC team beats them there.

So that's just from Farmers Field. In 2011. Need I go on? Well, I have no desire to. Plus, to show I'm not picking on any one person... one of those quotes is from me. But I'm not putting words in people's mouths. This has happened before, that's all.

[OldRamsFan]

If the Rams do move to LA, I'll have to change my User Name. I will never root for an LA team again.

[Gothamite]

Okay, my memory is lousy (especially since I think at least one of those is mine).

But don't you think this situation is just a little bit different, when the owner of a team about to be without a lease and with few prospects for a new stadium in his lousy market just happens to buy a nice stadium-sized piece of land in Los Angeles?

[CubsFanBudMan]

It is potentially different, but it's still a long way from 60 acres to Los Angeles Rams, despite appearances. Perhaps recent history has jaded me, but this guy also just bought 80 acres in Dallas, so I'm guessing he has other options for large pieces of land besides stadiums.

Could it work? Sure. But I also think the NFL prefers to go big, partly because some of these other options that blew us away haven't had a serious second look from the NFL, apparently. Do they want a home for the Rams, or a Super Bowl showplace? And ultimately who is running the show?

I guess I should stop rambling and say nothing is certain, because 3 years ago, it looked like Farmers Field was, and here we are.

[Brian in Boston]

So is Farmers Field still a thing? Or did it die?

It's still very much a thing. So is the downtown plan.

Just to clarify, "Farmers Field" IS the downtown plan. The City of Industry plan's working nomenclature was "Los Angeles Stadium", or "Los Angeles Stadium at Grand Crossing".

[Brian in Boston]

This has happened before, that's all.

In fairness, in the case of the two most recent NFL-centric Los Angeles stadium plans, it has not happened that the existing owner of an existing NFL franchise that has a soon-to-be-triggered existing out clause in its current stadium lease has been the existing land-owner of a stadium-suitable land parcel in Greater Los Angeles. All of those criteria have not aligned in the Los Angeles market before.

[CubsFanBudMan]

This has happened before, that's all.

In fairness, in the case of the two most recent NFL-centric Los Angeles stadium plans, it has not happened that the existing owner of an existing NFL franchise that has a soon-to-be-triggered existing out clause in its current stadium lease has been the existing land-owner of a stadium-suitable land parcel in Greater Los Angeles. All of those criteria have not aligned in the Los Angeles market before.

Do we know all of the land holdings of the other owners?

I was referring more to the connecting of dots here and in the media at a very early stage. Every stadium scenario is unique. This one may have more dots to connect, but it still doesn't mean it will play out that way.

[Brian in Boston]

Every stadium scenario is unique. This one may have more dots to connect, but it still doesn't mean it will play out that way.

That's undoubtedly true. Still, the fact remains that the primary additional "dot" in this case - that Kroenke, the existing owner of an NFL franchise that can exercise an out-clause in in its current stadium lease, has just purchased a significant tract of land in Greater Los Angeles - solves a problem that existed in both the Farmers Field and Los Angeles Stadium at Grand Crossing Plans" Namely, that the owner/developer of the land in Inglewood would not have to acquire an NFL franchise as he already owns one.

Incidentally, in a related note, on the topic of Kroenke's Inglewood land purchase, today's Los Angeles Times reports that New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft and San Diego Chargers owner Dean Spanos said its their understanding that an NFL owner "... would not have to inform the [NFL] league office about any type of [land] acquisitions in the L.A. area unless it had something to do with developing a stadium there."

Make of that what you will.

[CubsFanBudMan]

It will be interesting to watch play out, that's for sure.

[bosrs1]

So is Farmers Field still a thing? Or did it die?

It's still very much a thing. So is the downtown plan. Those are shovel-ready, with all the environmental permits and clearances in place, they just need a team.

The reason nobody's moved to one of them yet is that the teams in trouble - the Chargers, Rams, Raiders and until recently Vikings - all had designs/hopes on a new stadium where they are. In addition, both LA developers wanted to buy all or part of a team and move it, but there just aren't any for sale. Even the teams with stadium problems have stable ownership uninterested in selling off even a piece so long as there was a hope their current cities would come through. So stalemate.

What makes this plan so much more likely then the other two is that all the variables - project developer, land owner, team owner - are wrapped up in one man. Those major hurdles, which have paused the other two projects, just don't exist here.

Add to it that the Rose Bowl just won a court case allowing it to host an NFL team starting in 2015, and you've got a perfect storm. There's your temporary home while the Inglewood park is built.

If Kronke wants to move, he'll have very few obstacles. Rams partisans have said that he definitely does, and we'll see. But even if that's his secret inclination, St. Louis and Missouri better start sweetening their offer (doubling or tripling it) or get very, very creative if they want the Rams to stay. Because this land purchase last month changes the relocation landscape enormously.

Pretty sure you overstated Farmers readiness. It's my understanding funding has yet to be completely finalized and that there are still issues at the city issue to be resolved.

[STL FANATIC]

But don't you think this situation is just a little bit different, when the owner of a team about to be without a lease and with few prospects for a new stadium in his lousy market just happens to buy a nice stadium-sized piece of land in Los Angeles?

This is where your perspective has shortcomings.

I suppose we could debate endless whether or not St. Louis is a good football market, so I won't touch that except to say calling it "lousy" is pretty well bunk.

But there are plenty of prospects for a new stadium. They just haven't gotten to the point of in negotiations of focusing in on them. Hopefully if not presumably, this will get the ball rolling.

You seem to have it in your mind that St. Louis simply cannot or will not chip in public funds for a new stadium, and I have no idea where that comes from. St. Louis is not broke, and it's at worst unable to be determined how taxpayers would feel if it went to a public vote. (If the Rams have the on-field success they're capable of next year and beyond, there won't be any doubt the public would back funding.)

I'm not sure you've said this directly, but I think you also may feel the city will have to pay for the majority of the stadium, when I think it'd be 50% at most, just as most of the recently built stadiums have been. (I suggest it will be 1/3 public, 1/3 Kroenke, 1/3 Rams via an NFL G4 loan).

That last part really comes down to Stan Kroenke's motives, though, which we simply do not know. If Kroenke wants to move to LA, he's just going to do it. If Kroenke wants the absolute best business decision, then it will depend on how far into the future his outlook is. (Based on moving and building expenses, St. Louis is probably better business for 5-10 years, but LA will be more lucrative in a 10+ year outlook.) If his intention is to get the best and a relatively reasonable deal to stay in St. Louis, then St. Louis will probably be able to pony up for that, but we'll have to let things play out to see.

I think your perspective is that the man would be stone cold crazy to not bolt from St. Louis, and I think that's misguided.

[rams80]

If St. Louis is only a better play for the next 5-10 years, he would indeed be stone cold crazy not to bolt. That's not a lot of time at all.

[colortv]

On Pardon the Interruption yesterday Wilbon said he thinks that two teams will end up in Southern California.

Out of Oakland, St. Louis, and San Diego how would you rank worst to best chances of getting a stadium in their current market?

[colortv]

Today, February 1st, 2014, is the first day where the chargers could buy out of their lease where they haven't notified the City that they will be remaining in San Diego for the upcoming season. Crazy.

[Gothamite]

Pretty sure you overstated Farmers readiness. It's my understanding funding has yet to be completely finalized and that there are still issues at the city issue to be resolved.

Yes. Because as was pointed out above, I confused Farmers Field with the Industry plan, which I believe is ready to go. The downtown plan - Farmers - has some underlying issues to be resolved, although the most difficult ones (like environmental) have been resolved.

[STL FANATIC]

If St. Louis is only a better play for the next 5-10 years, he would indeed be stone cold crazy not to bolt. That's not a lot of time at all.

Stan Kroenke would be nearly 80 by that point (he'll by 77 in July and a move likely wouldn't happen for at least 2 years). I know businessmen are businessmen, but he may not have the same care for the super long-term now that he did 15 years ago.

Aside from that, the same would be true for San Diego, Minnesota, Atlanta, etc. There's very few markets in the league that wouldn't project to be outperformed by LA 10 years after a move.

But Dean Spanos wants to stay in San Diego. Zygi Wilf wants to stay in Minnesota. Arthur Blanke wants to stay in Atlanta. I'm not sure why Stan Kroenke might not also have some desires that go a bit beyond dollars and sense. It's like nobody believes someone might actually enjoy owning a team in St. Louis (despite the fact Kroenke is pretty much the #1 reason the Rams went to St. Louis in the first place.)