Gothamite Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 What's the general assessment of the Jacksonville situation?Lousy market. Maybe on the upswing. Tied to a long stadium lease that they can't get out of without opening up their books. Therefore unlikely. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HedleyLamarr Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Smells awful, too..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkJourney Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Only if the NFL could go back in time to 1993. The league probably wouldn't have expanded in the first place. Was there really a need to expand to 30 teams. No offense to Charlotte & Jacksonville. I know billionaires don't turn down expansion fees. That's money in the pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I'm not sure the NFL feels to terribly about it. No teams are actually losing money. Some make more than others. Carolina, I believe, does pretty well when they don't stink. Jacksonville may or may not be a strong market when they don't stink, but as I said, they make money regardless (which is why they'd never open their books and be able to get out of their lease without negotiating a new buyout). Not having a team in LA has leveraged many cities into building amazing new venues. The Rams moving to St. Louis gave one of their teams the league's most team-friendly lease and now has them in excellent negotiating position for a new stadium just 19 years after the move. (Certainly a better outcome than if the St. Louis expansion bid hadn't collapsed last minute back then.) The Raiders may not have excellent prospects for a new stadium, but something good will happen for them somewhere. The league has continued to be popular in LA despite not having a team, and at some point they will be able to make a grand re-entry in what will surely be a spectacle of a stadium. The NFL might wish they could cherry pick events on the timeline a little bit, but I think all and all they've got to be very satisfied with their team situation right now. (There are unrelated issues—such as the concussion issue—that I'm sure they wish they'd have treated differently.) JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colortv Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Is the attendance situation in St. Louis as bad as I recall reading? Something about it having the lowest attendence for the past some odd years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Check it out - hovering at the bottom, not higher than 29th since 2008:http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendanceI'm with Fanatic: I'm not sure that the NFL would so anything differently. Leaving LA without a team was never part of a plan, but it's worked out fine. Enough is enough, though, it's served it's purpose and now the city will be more valuable supporting a club than serving as leverage. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsFanBudMan Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 It hasn't given everything. Not yet.After reading those Chargers quotes, I think they are being overly patient -- year-to-year since 2007, someone said -- and I am convinced that the NFL is getting every current market that they can fixed first. No one is buying London as the new L.A. It's a game of musical chairs. As I mentioned before, MLB milked DC for almost all it was worth, but with no real relocation threat, problems in Oakland and Tampa Bay have lingered much longer than they should have. If someone else hits L.A. first, that's the Chargers and/or Raiders, if it isn't already. The NFL is orchestrating this behind the scenes, as shown by their dismissal of Farmers Field, which we all agreed a few years ago was well beyond anything that had previously been proposed. The Kroenke piece of land is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. If he hadn't notified the NFL, there wouldn't really be any leverage, would there? If no one else goes, the Chargers will. They are already laying claim to it. But that doesn't mean they can't get a stadium done in San Diego. But they sure aren't in any hurry considering the position they have been in since 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leopard88 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Check it out - hovering at the bottom, not higher than 29th since 2008:http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendanceI'm with Fanatic: I'm not sure that the NFL would so anything differently. Leaving LA without a team was never part of a plan, but it's worked out fine. Enough is enough, though, it's served it's purpose and now the city will be more valuable supporting a club than serving as leverage.I see the Steelers only averaged 57,311 last year. Maybe we should add them to the discussion. In all seriousness, I am a bit surprised to see that their attendance was that low, even if 2013 was a bit of a down year (at least by Steelers standards). Most Liked Content of the Day -- February 15, 2017, August 21, 2017, August 22, 2017   /////    Proud Winner of the CCSLC Post of the Day Award -- April 8, 2008 Originator of the Upside Down Sarcasm Smilie -- November 1, 2005  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Check it out - hovering at the bottom, not higher than 29th since 2008:http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendanceI'm with Fanatic: I'm not sure that the NFL would so anything differently. Leaving LA without a team was never part of a plan, but it's worked out fine. Enough is enough, though, it's served it's purpose and now the city will be more valuable supporting a club than serving as leverage.I see the Steelers only averaged 57,311 last year. Maybe we should add them to the discussion. In all seriousness, I am a bit surprised to see that their attendance was that low, even if 2013 was a bit of a down year (at least by Steelers standards).That chart is weird. Must be turnstyle clicks instead of actual tickets sold, which is the opposite of how I thought that was reported. I know Steelers tickets were readily available for dirt cheap last year, but they were at least all sold up front before the fan base bailed. Considering the waiting list, they're one of the teams that will likely never be mentioned in these discussions. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 It is turnstile clicks - the NFL might be the last league to still count attendance that way.All those 97%-98%-99%, those are legitimate sellouts who just had people not show up for whatever reason. So yes, Steeler fans bought tickets for every game last year but didn't show up to all of them.As an aside, I'm stunned that the Packers could lose Aaron Rodgers for half the year and still have be at 106% capacity. What, were all the bars closed? The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HedleyLamarr Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 If I were a seat-holder for a franchise with a decades-long waiting list, I'd hold on to those tickets and either go to the games or sell off single games to those desperate to go to a game at Lambeau. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcgd Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 It is turnstile clicks - the NFL might be the last league to still count attendance that way.All those 97%-98%-99%, those are legitimate sellouts who just had people not show up for whatever reason. So yes, Steeler fans bought tickets for every game last year but didn't show up to all of them.As an aside, I'm stunned that the Packers could lose Aaron Rodgers for half the year and still have be at 106% capacity. What, were all the bars closed?Hell look at Dallas. They AVERAGE about 8000 people standing room only. Pretty remarkable no matter the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colortv Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 It hasn't given everything. Not yet.After reading those Chargers quotes, I think they are being overly patient -- year-to-year since 2007, someone said -- and I am convinced that the NFL is getting every current market that they can fixed first. No one is buying London as the new L.A. It's a game of musical chairs.As I mentioned before, MLB milked DC for almost all it was worth, but with no real relocation threat, problems in Oakland and Tampa Bay have lingered much longer than they should have.If someone else hits L.A. first, that's the Chargers and/or Raiders, if it isn't already.The NFL is orchestrating this behind the scenes, as shown by their dismissal of Farmers Field, which we all agreed a few years ago was well beyond anything that had previously been proposed. The Kroenke piece of land is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. If he hadn't notified the NFL, there wouldn't really be any leverage, would there?If no one else goes, the Chargers will. They are already laying claim to it. But that doesn't mean they can't get a stadium done in San Diego. But they sure aren't in any hurry considering the position they have been in since 2007.The two reasons I've heard for the NFL not endorsing Farmers are that a) the parking would be worse than its presented as(which I don't think is true because the city, which approved the project is probably far more stringent than the NFL when it comes to this) and b ) The primary reason, that AEG isn't willing to pay market value for a piece of a franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I can think of another - why endorse one out of a number of competing plans before you absolutely have to? Why on Earth would they kill a competition between developers that can only be to the NFL's benefit? Not to mention new players like Kroenke will step up the longer the competition continues. When a team is actually ready to move, then it will be time to select a plan. Until then, the NFL has a vested interest in not endorsing a plan. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsFanBudMan Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 That would make sense, but reports surfaced in October 2012 that the NFL had a preferred site, and it was Chavez Ravine:http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/10/23/report-nfl-owners-prefer-chavez-ravine-over-downtown-la/So while it might not be wise to choose sides, leaking info that a "shovel-ready" existing plan isn't up to par with a pipe dream doesn't help. And it's why Farmers Field disappeared from the national discussion since then to the point that they had to remind everyone they still exist recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Leaked internal discussions are not the same as the league taking sides. Of course they want Chavez Ravine. Great location for so many reasons, but that's never going to happen. Not so long as Frank McCourt owns the Dodger Stadium parking lots. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsFanBudMan Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Which is why I called it a pipe dream. But when the NFL reportedly would rather chase it with Farmers Field sitting in front of them, no one really took Farmers Field seriously again. And that led to a press conference this month that announced, "We're still here."Perception can be reality. The perception was that the NFL wasn't interested. And now we've all moved on to Kroenke's land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsFanBudMan Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 A current leak presents a real-time example: Word is the NFL is prepared to pull the Super Bowl from Arizona for political reasons. No stand taken, or message sent and delivered? I'd say the latter, but the former could be argued... technically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Considering they did it to Arizona once before, I think this "leak" is a clear message.Much more so than their maneuvering on the LA stadium deal. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsFanBudMan Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Hmm... they've pulled the rug out from under L.A. a few times, too. I believe they are waiting for the touchdown rather than settling for the field goal, but time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.