NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[colortv]

If you believe LA can and will get two teams, the Rams could move and still have an opening for those teams to gain leverage. Additionally, it could be argued that with a Rams move would come an actual, physical stadium that one of those teams could share with the Rams. That likely brings more leverage.

I don't believe the NFL will block anyone from moving for the sake of keeping leverage. I just don't believe any of these teams will be in a hurry to move in the first place. (The Chargers clearly aren't.)

Sam Farmer, who seems to be the most plugged-in reporter from LA, said today that he doesn't believe LA will have a team four years from now. (I'm not sure why four years was the chosen span.) He believes there remain too many obstacles.

Where did you read the Farmer stuff?

[STL FANATIC]

St. Louis sportscaster Frank Cusamano's Twitter account.

Farmer was on his radio show (Cusamano's primary job is television, though) this morning. You can find the segment here.

[STL FANATIC]

Just listened to the actual segment. I recommend it.

Some takeaways:

• Farmer is skeptical of expansion for three major reasons. 1. Despite high expansion fees (he wonders if they'd be unfeasibly high, too), splitting the TV pie 2 extra ways makes the financial aspects less enticing. 2. The simple logistics of whether there's markets for two more teams with some current ones already struggling (he mentions by name each of the three Florida franchises) and how they'd be evenly aligned. 3. The removal of leverage from teams like the Chargers, Raiders, and Rams if those cities caught wind that the NFL was actually planning on expanding.

• Farmer wouldn't reveal the LA Times source for the land deal, but perhaps implies that it was leaked by someone close to the NFL or Kroenke because of what they have to gain from them. (In an article a couple pages back, it's noted that this story was reported almost simultaneously by a major outlet in each city despite the land purchase having closed 2 weeks prior and that being public domain information.)

• Farmer believes this location is more than okay for a stadium, but would require a lot of additional money spent to have enough nearby parking to make it an ideal situation.

• Farmer outright states (as opposed to presenting it as his opinion) that the Chargers have done what they've needed to do to meet the league's requirements for moving as far as exhausting options in their home market, but that the Rams "haven't done that... at least to the league's satisfaction."

• Additionally, Farmer notes that the Chargers (and maybe the Raiders) in part due to their lease and in part due to the above, are in a position to beat any team to LA if they caught wind of one preparing a move. This is on the premise that no team wants to be the second one into the market.

• Farmer also notes that the Rams already have public money on the table (presumably from the CVC's arbitration proposal) and that the league does not want a team walking away from potential public money without extensive negotiations first because of the precedent that sets.

• Last note is that Farmer's does not believe there will be a team in LA in the next 3-4 years, and his response didn't imply he thought one was coming in 5 or 6 either. He seems to believe there are just too many hurdles for it to happen in that term.

[Gothamite]

I don't know. Farmer is also the one who said of Kroenke's land purchase "(he) isn't bluffing, either. He loves L.A., and a stadium in that area was already approved for Davis before he moved the Raiders in 1994. This is no joke."

[STL FANATIC]

Sure, but the context of that quote adds up with what he said in the interview above.

He doesn't believe Kroenke is bluffing, but he does believe this is first and foremost a leverage play (the lack of bluffing comes in it being a suitable backup). He also believes that regardless of Kroenke's current intentions, there's a heck of a lot of hurdles to clear before a team—specifically the Rams—would move to LA. Hurdles he apparently believes will hold up a move for at least the next handful of years.

All of that said, there is a very significant tone difference between his interview on St. Louis radio and his article in the LA Times. Wonder why that is. Could he be trying to appeal to his audience a bit in one or the other or both (without actually changing his stance—just his tone)? Or maybe it's a situation that nobody has a true read on, so the tone could just depend on his mood at the time.

This is me putting my St. Louis hat on and trying to put a positive spin on it, but I'm not sure what he would have to gain by saying things that St. Louis would want to hear. Conversely, he actually might get more reads and sell more papers by writing something LA wants to hear. Anyways, no sense trying to read the tea leaves of a reporter who while apparently informed, still doesn't have any real knowledge of Kroenke's intentions (something that seems to apply to everyone but Kroenke himself).

[Evil G]

This is me putting my St. Louis hat on

Techincally, you always are...

[Gothamite]

I think we all know and accept that. It's cool.

And actually, if Farmer wants his columns to keep getting re-posted in the Post-Dispatch, he has all the reason in the world to stoke the fires.

But I agree - his opinion is interesting but I don't think it adds much more than yours and mine.

[STL FANATIC]

This is me putting my St. Louis hat on

Techincally, you always are...

I almost put that in parenthesis actually, lol.

[colortv]

I think his talk of hurdles is a bit of baloney.

I mean both Farmers and the City of Industry projects are practically shovel ready, and even with the issues of AEG ownership if someone really wanted they could move their team to the City of Industry location.

[Gothamite]

True enough. And don't forget that the Rose Bowl is now perfectly capable of serving as a temporary home until any new stadium is built. A team could easily announce their move the day after the Super Bowl and play the first game of the next season in the City of Angels.

[STL FANATIC]

Well now that Pro Football Talk has picked this up, I figure someone will mention it soon enough. There are reports that Kroenke is applying for an MLS License for an LA team to be affiliated with Arsenal (which he owns).

I'm dubious on this. The Sun, out of the UK, claims they had sources that Kroenke's applying for an MLS License. However, all of the speculation that he's looking to place a team in LA seems to stem from one article from a site that few have heard of. Although legitimate news sources like PFT and the St. Louis Business Journal have begun to pick up the story, everyone one of them either directly or in a round about way simply notes that this is "reportedly" happening. Nobody seems to have their own sources on it.

But, since it's making waves, it may be worth discussing with the rest of the anecdotal notes we've got.

• This could be true. He could be trying to get an MLS team in LA and build a dual-purpose stadium on his new land for the Rams to move to as well.

• This could be true and it could be the sole purpose he bought the land for. It could be a soccer-specific stadium and have little to do with the Rams (after all, he doesn't seem to mind owning teams all over the grid.)

• It could be true that he's applying for an MLS license, but the LA part could be born of speculation (or an intentional inaccurate leak). Perhaps he's seeking an MLS team to join the Rams in a new St. Louis stadium.

• The whole thing could be false. Why in the world would the MLS put 3 teams in LA? Don't the Galaxy have such a strangle hold on it that Chivas is on life-support? Certainly if this did happen Chivas would have to fold or move, right?

Anyway, more fodder for us while Stan keeps his cards close.

[Gothamite]

Yeah, the Arsenal thing feels like a red herring.

Chivas is failing largely because they're very poorly run (and racist to boot). I've no doubt that LA could support two teams well, just not that one.

[rams80]

Chivas' issues have less to do with the Galaxy and more to do with management setting squarely in the nexus of "racist" and "incompetent."

That said, doesn't Kroenke already own the Rapids?

[Gothamite]

Yes. That may or not be a problem, given the single-entity structure of MLS.

[STL FANATIC]

Unless they've recently changed it, I believe MLS still allows a single owner to own multiple teams. They've probably achieved enough stability that they ought to ditch that, though.

Regardless, I figure Kroenke can always pass off the Rapids to his son, as he did with the Avalanche and Nuggets, if need be.

[hbgoo1975]

We're not getting the Rams or any other team. By the time LA gets a team, they won't wear helmets anymore! Why does the MLS need another team in LA when we have two already? We're stuck with the LA Kiss now who will go 0-16!

[bosrs1]

Yes. That may or not be a problem, given the single-entity structure of MLS.

It is when you consider MLS has spent the last decade trying to rid itself of multiple team ownership which it's all but done with 50% of the Dynamo being owned by AEG only left to eliminate (Hunt, AEG, and Kraft have all divested of their remaining teams). They wouldn't want Kroenke taking on a second team (in a market they've already got 2 teams in).

[Still MIGHTY]

We're not getting the Rams or any other team. By the time LA gets a team, they won't wear helmets anymore! Why does the MLS need another team in LA when we have two already? We're stuck with the LA Kiss now who will go 0-16!

We?

...

[Evil G]

That said, doesn't Kroenke already own the Rapids?

I thought he is going to sell the Rapids. Either way, it still feels like a red herring, as I doubt the MLS would want a 3rd team in LA.

[colortv]

Another problem for Chivas is that if you're a fan of one of the OTHER big Mexican franchises that are rivals of it...why cheer for Chivas USA?

Anyway I can't imagine MLS putting a 3rd team in the same market...maybe Kroenke buys and rebrands Chivas?