NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[rams80]

You consider it rude? Ok. It's sports. Not a night at the opera. Drunken fans who were probably a bit giddy that the team was up by so much probably got a bit to into the action. The fact that they were there, in the stadium, supporting the team, tells me LA wouldn't be the worst place for the Rams to end up. They certainly haven't been selling out the Dome in St. Louis (or lightning up the ratings charts).

It wasn't a "few drunk fans". It was a to of fans. That kind of thing was the norm in LA.

I mean, I generally despise Los Angeles fans, but to say the primary reason why the Rams left southern California was the fickle/rude fans with a sense of entitlement is buying into the Frontiere spin machine. It's hard to pin such consistent ineptitude and finger-pointing all on the LA fans, as just about any market this side of Cleveland would abandon their team in that situation.

*Can't say I entirely disagree.

Of all the things Georgia did do, she had no part in the fans treating the team like crap. Here's just one shining example:

December 1980: Rams up by 24 against the Cowboys. Rams receiver drops a pass and the fans boo him.

And that kind of stuff happened all the time. It was well known at that time how fickle and rude the LA fans were. I remember reading about it and seeing it play out.

Hooray. One incident devoid of context. Got others?

Devoid of context? I gave you the entire story. Up by 24 points. What other context do you need?

Was the wideout in question prone to dropping passes? Hell, I'd boo Az Hakim if he dropped one in 2001.

[STL FANATIC]

I just think it's a bit silly to debate the quality of LA fans. LA fans are somewhat fickle, but there's a lot of them in the metro to make up for that. I'm pretty confident if the team in LA ends up being as bad as the Rams have been in St. Louis, they'll do poorly in attendance, but if they're good, they'll do great. And attendance really doesn't decide the fate of these teams anyways.

I don't see the point in arguing against LA as a football market. They'll support a well-run franchise. Of course they will.

The question, is will the factors necessary to put a team in the market come to fruition? I think they will, I just don't know when. And I think it's 25% or less that it will be the Rams (but my stab at odds is worthless).

[Gothamite]

And attendance really doesn't decide the fate of these teams anyways.

I agree with that, but only to a point. Fan involvement doesn't necessarily decide whether a team stays or goes (Cleveland Browns, Milwaukee Braves, Brooklyn Dodgers, Baltimore Colts), but any team that can demonstrate a large and passionate fanbase will have a much better time convincing public officials to open up the tax coffers. There's much less pressure to bear when stands are empty and politicians don't see any significant danger of being tarred as "the one who drove our beloved __________s out of town".

[OldRamsFan]

You consider it rude? Ok. It's sports. Not a night at the opera. Drunken fans who were probably a bit giddy that the team was up by so much probably got a bit to into the action. The fact that they were there, in the stadium, supporting the team, tells me LA wouldn't be the worst place for the Rams to end up. They certainly haven't been selling out the Dome in St. Louis (or lightning up the ratings charts).

It wasn't a "few drunk fans". It was a to of fans. That kind of thing was the norm in LA.

I mean, I generally despise Los Angeles fans, but to say the primary reason why the Rams left southern California was the fickle/rude fans with a sense of entitlement is buying into the Frontiere spin machine. It's hard to pin such consistent ineptitude and finger-pointing all on the LA fans, as just about any market this side of Cleveland would abandon their team in that situation.

*Can't say I entirely disagree.

Of all the things Georgia did do, she had no part in the fans treating the team like crap. Here's just one shining example:

December 1980: Rams up by 24 against the Cowboys. Rams receiver drops a pass and the fans boo him.

And that kind of stuff happened all the time. It was well known at that time how fickle and rude the LA fans were. I remember reading about it and seeing it play out.

Hooray. One incident devoid of context. Got others?

Devoid of context? I gave you the entire story. Up by 24 points. What other context do you need?

Was the wideout in question prone to dropping passes? Hell, I'd boo Az Hakim if he dropped one in 2001.

I don't remember for sure, but I think it was Billy Waddy. And no, he wasn't known for dropping passes.

Were you a fan of the Rams back then? I don't see how anyone who was wouldn't admit that the nest was full of boo birds. They were known for it. But hey, at least they didn't pelt Santa Claus with ice balls!

[IceCap]

"Boo birds"? Seriously? Regardless of what the stadium was full of, being full of anything's a step above what the situation in St. Louis is like. You seem like you've been a fan of the Rams a while. If they move back to LA for the betterment of the team and you refuse to support them after that...well I guess they won't miss you.

[OldRamsFan]

"Boo birds"? Seriously? Regardless of what the stadium was full of, being full of anything's a step above what the situation in St. Louis is like. You seem like you've been a fan of the Rams a while. If they move back to LA for the betterment of the team and you refuse to support them after that...well I guess they won't miss you.

Of course they won't miss me. But clearly you miss my point, so I'll spell it out. Because of their past experience with LA fans, I do not think the move would be for the better. I think it would be a big mistake.

[rams80]

"Boo birds"? Seriously? Regardless of what the stadium was full of, being full of anything's a step above what the situation in St. Louis is like. You seem like you've been a fan of the Rams a while. If they move back to LA for the betterment of the team and you refuse to support them after that...well I guess they won't miss you.

Of course they won't miss me. But clearly you miss my point, so I'll spell it out. Because of their past experience with LA fans, I do not think the move would be for the better. I think it would be a big mistake.

Ehh, the Pollyanna Brigade's kind of crappy since they suck at agitating for change and are too trusting of the management. If the LA fans are booing, that at least means some s are given.

[Gothamite]

But clearly you miss my point, so I'll spell it out. Because of their past experience with LA fans, I do not think the move would be for the better. I think it would be a big mistake.

And you are of course entitled to your opinion, but when it's that extreme, and insufficiently justified, we're entitled not to take it very seriously.

Philly's stands are full of boo-birds, but I don't think anyone would suggest with a straight face that the Eagles would be better off before St. Louis crowds, or Jacksonville's empty seats.

By their very nature, boo-birds are passionate fans who demand excellence. Which kinda runs counter to the "Los Angeles doesn't care about football" meme that some partisans have been trying to spread.

[colortv]

So are the Rams, Raiders, and Chargers to the top candidates for an LA move?

[Gothamite]

I think right now they're the only candidates for an LA move.

By all rights, Jacksonville should be deep in the conversation, but they have a lease that's tricky to get out of (which their former owner strengthened on his way out the door), so as far as I know they're not in this at all. Every other team I can think of that was considered has a new stadium. Or at least a deal in place.

That's why I don't find the "they need to keep LA open for stadium leverage" argument to be terribly compelling: it's worked. With those three exceptions (two of which would be taken care of by an LA stadium), all the teams are set for the next 15 or so years.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to leave Los Angeles empty until 2029 or whenever the Giants or Jets start sniffing around for a new park. There will be plenty of time to groom a new leverage-threat-city before then, while reaping the benefits of being in the second-largest city in the country.

[colortv]

The Bills situation could also open up in that time span I suppose.

It seems that all 3 of those are in very, very precarious situations, so much so that right now it doesn't look like any of them have a shot at getting stadiums in their current markets.

Any markets besides LA that could host a team?

[Gothamite]

Think you're right - I don't see Oakland or San Diego putting up public dollars to build a new stadium. St. Louis is contractually obligated to do just that but it seems from the outside as though that's going nowhere fast. "Precarious" seems to fit.

As for other relocation options - don't really see any. Except, of course, for Oakland, San Diego or St. Louis once they lose their teams, if their politicians are therefore suitably chastened into building a new stadium as we saw in Cleveland, Baltimore, Houston etc.

[STL FANATIC]

St. Louis is no longer contractually obligated to do anything. That clause has played out and is now gone, and the lease is going year to year. The Rams are now in essentially the exact same situation San Diego has been in for years and Minnesota was in for a while.

I still don't understand how the outside (or wherever) has any read on where that's going. It's just beginning to reach the point where negotiations would start. (This assumes Kroenke is open to negotiations and isn't just biding his time before an already planned move—a possible scenario.)

As for LA sitting empty...again, expansion is a very real option. I believe it is the most realistic. You think the owners really care about the pain of re-alignment over an extra $2 billion in expansion fees and perhaps increased TV deals? I don't.

[Gothamite]

I thought that was through the end of 2014? No matter. They could have locked the Rams into the lease, but didn't.

You're anticipating expansion by two teams into Los Angeles? That's what it would take.

In other news, there's a report out that Governor Nixon has been reaching out to Kroenke in the wake of his land purchase, but the Rams owner isn't returning his calls.

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/McKernan/tabid/61/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/12268/Is-Kroenke-Not-Returning-Gov-Nixons-Calls.aspx

Man knows how to play hardball.

[STL FANATIC]

Just read that as well. He sure does. Factor in the likely planned leak of the story... the man just plays the game, doesn't he? Who knows what he's thinking.

I think a double expansion into LA is possible. But it could just be one team and another elsewhere (no, I don't buy London either, so I don't know where else). And the Raiders and Chargers remain as likely if not more likely to be the second team (in addition to an expansion) in LA than the Rams IMO.

As for the lease, it is after 2014 when it actually goes to year to year. But because the arbitration has played out, there's nothing more to it. The CVC formally rejected the Rams plan that was selected by the arbitrator, so with that, the clause about first tier was struck and the Rams were given the right to operate year to year after 2014.

[colortv]

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_24646094/oakland-doubts-raised-about-coliseum-city

Supervisor Richard Valle made clear he opposed any public subsidy to keep Oakland's three professional sports teams in the East Bay, while Supervisor Keith Carson zeroed in on the fact that the city and county still owe more than $200 million from renovations to the o.Co Coliseum and Oracle Arena two decades ago.

"We don't generate enough revenue to cover our existing debt," Carson said. "That is because we did not ask enough questions (before the renovations) and did not have the factual data to back it up."

According to Alameda County Auditor Patrick O'Connell, city and county taxpayers are on the hook for $113 million in debt on the Coliseum and $90 million in debt on the arena incurred to renovate the buildings in the 1990s. Taxpayers fork over $20 million a year paying down the debt and running the facilities for Oakland's three teams.

The Raiders are interested, but they play fewer games and their initial stadium concept called for a smallish open-air football stadium that wouldn't be able to host many other events. It also came with a $300 million funding shortfall.

After reading that article, I'm just wondering exactly what the Raiders think makes Oakland viable in the long term?

[bosrs1]

Think you're right - I don't see Oakland or San Diego putting up public dollars to build a new stadium. St. Louis is contractually obligated to do just that but it seems from the outside as though that's going nowhere fast. "Precarious" seems to fit.

As for other relocation options - don't really see any. Except, of course, for Oakland, San Diego or St. Louis once they lose their teams, if their politicians are therefore suitably chastened into building a new stadium as we saw in Cleveland, Baltimore, Houston etc.

I agree on Oakland. They have no money to give to the team so there won't be any forthcoming. But under the right circumstances I can see San Diego putting some public money in. But the team and the developers need to stop pimping multiple downtown stadium plans that the general public and their own fans don't want. It makes far too much sense to simply put a new stadium next to the old one like they've done in places like New Jersey. Its where the public wants it, and most of their fans seem to want it.

[dbadefense1990]

Not a real surprise, but the Chargers confirm that they'll stay put for 2014. Here sets up a very interesting 2015 offseason with the Chargers and Rams.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-san-diego-chargers-20140204,0,5088923.story#axzz2sOm54b8U

[Gothamite]

I think a double expansion into LA is possible. But it could just be one team and another elsewhere (no, I don't buy London either, so I don't know where else).

...and that's the exact moment where the scenario breaks down for me.

You need a second expansion market, but the NFL doesn't even have enough markets for the teams it has already. I just don't see a second viable expansion city, London is a cynical pr stunt, so expansion into Los Angeles seems far less likely to me.

As for the lease, it is after 2014 when it actually goes to year to year. But because the arbitration has played out, there's nothing more to it. The CVC formally rejected the Rams plan that was selected by the arbitrator, so with that, the clause about first tier was struck and the Rams were given the right to operate year to year after 2014.

Thanks!

So if I'm understanding this correctly, the lease expires at the end of next season. But then what happens? Do they need to give notice, or can they make a Pasadena reservation and book a U-Haul for January 2015? If he is dead-set on moving, hypothetically, what's the earliest opt-out date?

[STL FANATIC]

As I understand it (don't take this as gospel), the Rams have to let the CVC know if they will play 2015 in the Edward Jones Dome by early that year (February or March maybe).

Perhaps more notable is that the NFL requires notice of intent to relocate by Feb. 15 of the year of relocation.

Along those lines, however, is that the NFL's current rules for relocation also require that teams "to work diligently and in good faith to obtain and to maintain suitable stadium facilities in their home territories."

A lot can happen in a year, but seeing as no real negotiations have taken place on a new stadium (and this is certainly true if Kroenke is returning the lead negotiator's calls), I'm not sure the Rams would be able to say they've worked diligently or in good faith to secure a new stadium in St. Louis by Feb. 2015.

That said, I also think the NFL has virtually no integrity and is full of crap and would ignore their rules if at any point they... well... felt like it.

In any case, I think the answer to your question is that their biggest issue with sneaking out as quickly as possible is NFL rules and regulations and not anything in the lease.

NFL Policy and Procedure for Franchise Relocation