duma

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

Recommended Posts

But until international travel speeds are tripled, and they outlaw time zones, seems like a ludicrously bad idea to me.

Outlaw the what now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, the Treasury wants it.

But until international travel speeds are tripled, and they outlaw time zones, seems like a ludicrously bad idea to me.

I agree with you. So why doesn't Goodell see what we see?

Because here's all what Goodell and the owners see:

tumblr_mw4om2pKRW1slccufo1_r1_500.gif

But until international travel speeds are tripled, and they outlaw time zones, seems like a ludicrously bad idea to me.

Outlaw the what now?

Yeah...I'm not prepared to live in a world where the sun is still out at 10:00pm because we in SoCal have to abide the same exact time as those in Boston and Philly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there are any Concordes still laying around, that would really help things along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure Goth was kidding. Which is sort of funny, because it shows how much crazy faith we have in technology in a weird way. We, apparently, find it totally plausible that tripling international time speeds could happen in the near to mid-term.

Or at least that's what I assume is implied by missing the sarcasm on the outlawing time zones suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the Vikings, they were A LOT more open about the possibility of moving to LA than the Rams have been. In this article, there are quotes from a Minnesota Senator saying that LA has come up in their talks with the Vikings as an "open market", though not as an outright threat.

There's also a comment from a Vikings official openly talking about staying in touch with AEG to monitor their stadium situation, before talking out of the other side of his mouth about how the Vikings have no plan B.

http://espn.go.com/blog/los-angeles/nfl/post/_/id/807/could-the-minnesota-vikings-really-move-to-l-a

Without making a threat, the Vikings were very open about "hey guys... we could go to LA... give us a stadium."

Conversely, the only thing the Rams tell their fans is that speculation about a Rams move to LA is natural but completely false, there's nothing to see there, the Rams are focusing on a solution in St. Louis, and fans should ignore the various media reports that will come out and not panic. In fact, the Rams have gone so far as to mention that San Diego has been able to get out of their lease for years but never has. So if you're wondering why there's not a mega-push just because the lease is going year-to-year, it's because the Rams themselves have totally downplayed that as a big deal.

I'm not saying the Rams are trustworthy. Far from it. But it's an entirely different approach. And also entirely confusing.

The Rams current situation reminds me more than a little bit of the Brooklyn Dodgers, mid-1956. If you remember, at that time Walter O'Malley was willing to keep the Dodgers in Brooklyn if the City of New York would help him by condeming the property where he wanted a new, domed stadium built (which, ironically, is the exact spot where the Nets arena is today). Robert Moses instead offered him the site where Shea Stadium eventually went, and O'Malley turned it down. Then LA came along and offered him Chavez Ravine, and it was bye-bye, Brooklyn.

Ownership is willing to keep the Rams in St. Louis, provided the governmental parties involved meet the team in the goal of building a new stadium. St. Louis, having less than 25 years ago building a new stadium to lure the team in the first place, isn't all that sure keeping the Rams is worth buckling to its demands. And Rams ownership has an LA-based option if it wants to use it.

There's no real reason for the Rams to be all that public about what's going on, to make threats, etc. The pieces to move, should it choose to, are already in place save a few. They know it, and the counterparts they're dealing with at governmental levels know it. Get a new stadium in St. Louis, and it adds $X to the value of the franchise. Get a new stadium in Los Angeles, and it adds $X times $Y. Either way it's a win-win, so why diminish your business reputation squawking about it when the ultimate outcome is in your favor?

The basic logistics just don't support an actual team in London. And those don't appear to be changing anytime soon.

Not for a single franchise, no. But... put a second NFL franchise in Germany, and the logistics change dramatically.

The NFL's regular season schedule makes a London/Berlin expansion (or relocation) quite plausible. Putting the teams in the same division, each team that had European travel would simply play two away games (one in London, the other in Berlin or Frankfurt) in back-to-back weeks. The London/German teams meanwhile would conduct three "road swings," much in the same way the east coast teams would go to Los Angeles and San Francisco in the early 1950's: three weeks on one road trip, two weeks on the road for the second, two weeks on the road for the third. Your 8th away game is against your London/German divisional opponent, which is akin to a Pittsburgh/Chicago in terms of travel. Schedule bye weeks based on any unusual travel situations (e.g., following a London at San Francisco trip).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the NFL's playoff schedule makes having a team in London impossible. The teams that have played there during the regular season start planning for the trip, including sending equipment via boat, in August. How could a team properly prepare for a game across the Atlantic on one week's notice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine it's just cost savings that teams are shipping things by boat that early. You can have something sent from Jacksonville to Kuala Lumpur overnight (although I wonder what "overnight" means when so many time zones are involved)... it just costs money.

As for travel for players, I honestly don't think it should be a big deal. In this age of lay-flat seats and other such amenities for international flights, and players probably still fly over there on private jets nicer than first class. I would leave as soon as possible after the last game to let the players sleep off the jet lag while they can't move anyway.

And it should be noted that we did have Mach 2 transport for years.

All that being said, don't put a team in London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the NFL's playoff schedule makes having a team in London impossible. The teams that have played there during the regular season start planning for the trip, including sending equipment via boat, in August. How could a team properly prepare for a game across the Atlantic on one week's notice?

You don't think the NFL's capable of setting up two training facilities: one for clubs going over there, and one for those coming over from there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But until international travel speeds are tripled, and they outlaw time zones, seems like a ludicrously bad idea to me.

Outlaw the what now?

Exactly.

How many pixels are devoted to discussing the competitive disadvantage west coast teams face when they fly a few hours east? The Seattle Seahawks or San Francisco 49ers would have to deal with not a mere three hour time difference, but an eight-hour one. Insead of a five-hour flight, they'd face a nine-hour trip.

Right now, teams that play in London get a bye week after every game to try and offset the jetlag and travel times. That means no games at Wembley in the first and last several weeks of the season, prime games that the local fans will be deprived of.

This situation becomes infinitely worse when you consider the playoffs, where you can't build in that bye week buffer. Consider a scenario where the wild card Chargers have to fly to London and play a first-round Saturday game against the Jaguars, then when they win fly back to the West Coast to face the divisional champs LA Raiders, who have spent the last week on a bye? What would the Competition Committee say about pairing a team that had traveled fourteen thousand miles (and sixteen time zones) in the past seven days against a fully-rested team at home? (Cheap shot/easy joke alert: Hey, maybe that's why they're talking about moving the Jags? :P )

That's what I mean when I talk about logistics. Not the surmountable issues of moving men and equipment across the globe on short notice, but the very curvature of the Earth itself. That's going to be a significant hurdle for even the mighty NFL to jump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had missed this before, but here's St. Louis Post-Dispatch writer Bryan Burwell (the reporter/columnist that wrote the article suggesting St. Louis IS working on a stadium plan) on St. Louis radio later in the day responding (to an extent) to the La Canfora interview.

http://www.insidestlaudio.com/HomeStretch/102114-3HS.mp3

Burwell says some interesting things.

1. He doesn't call La Canfora a liar or question his info. He does question his certainty, but not his info. Burwell essentially says to recognize the source and take the appropriate stock. In other words, he says note that La Canfora is a national source getting some of the inner perspectives of the league officials, and he himself is a St. Louis source getting the perspective of local officials. They can both be a valid part of the same story.

2. He suggests it's a bit irrational to start wondering about whether St. Louis can and would support a $500 million public payment, because "we haven't seen the bill." He notes a few potential creative ways to include a public-private partnership, some much more likely to have public support than others. He's clear that he doesn't know what the proposed breakdown would be, just that statements (more of a rhetorical question, I suppose) like La Canfora's about whether St. Louis can pay $500 million aren't good for anything more than speculation right now.

3. He reiterates a point he mentioned in the article, that he thinks we're likely to hear more after election day. He think the public officials are weary of taking a strong stance prior to the elections.

4. He throws in a bit at the end about how St. Louis officials seem confident in a "plan B" even if Kroenke moves. And he allows that the hosts' speculation about that being Shad Khan moving Jacksonville to St. Louis is probably what he's talking about. I have ALWAYS been skeptical about this musical chairs possibility. In part because I'm skeptical about the Jags getting out of their lease any time soon. So I remain skeptical. But I think this is the first time I've ever seen that mentioned by anyone that might be considered a real source. Now, it's also possible that the public officials he's talked to are simply fantasizing themselves. Maybe even likely. But it's just interesting to hear that possibility even floated from someone other than fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Searched:

Save the Raiders: Story about coaches from September.

Save the Chargers: UT San Diego stories from August about convention center expansion.

Save the Rams: Facebook page called "Keep the Rams in St. Louis" with 16,000 fans. The next event is "Turn Arrowhead blue and gold" on Oct. 26. (Whoa, good luck with that.) :)

So... are Rams fans just better at SEO? I really didn't expect to find much, but this is what we are looking for, correct? Or at least the seeds of it?

With the Chargers it's obvious why there's no effort to "Save" them. They're not even a threat to leave yet. The latest noise from them is that they want to put a San Diego stadium on the ballot in fall 2016. They've never said a thing about moving to Los Angeles other than to deny they've even talked with anyone from LA nevermind explored moving. And the news out of the NFL seems to back that. Rams and Raiders have both been in talks at varying times with LA interests... Chargers not so much.

That said I'm sure you'll see some effort arise in late 2015 or early 2016 as the vote for the new stadium gets closer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the NFL's playoff schedule makes having a team in London impossible. The teams that have played there during the regular season start planning for the trip, including sending equipment via boat, in August. How could a team properly prepare for a game across the Atlantic on one week's notice?

You don't think the NFL's capable of setting up two training facilities: one for clubs going over there, and one for those coming over from there?

It's a concern the NFL still hasn't addressed so the solution isn't that simple:

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/10/02/nfl-team-in-london-international-series/

Theres another complication that the NFL has only begun thinking about recently, as the push for London has heated up. Teams scheduled to play in London begin planning for their trips in February. They take two reconnaissance visits overseas in the spring. In August they send a shipment of bulk supplies by boat to save money and space on the team plane. Included in the Raiders shipment: 10 cases of 8.5 x 11-inch computer paper for play sheets (standard paper is a different size in the U.K.), a couple hundred cases of Gatorade (teams are superstitious about flavors) and 600 outlet plug converters.

If a London-based team earned a home playoff game, how would the opponent make preparations for an overseas trip in less than a week? We dont have an answer to that, Waller says. We always planned these as regular-season games. So now we are having to work through, how would that work?

And, of course, the competitive disadvantage thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems so petty - we even need to ship computer paper over - but these are the considerations legitimately international companies deal with all the time. If that's really what the NFL aspires to be, they have a lot to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was a team in London, there would no doubt be a "permanent" facility for visitors, which would be stocked with whatever non-team-specific supplies would be needed, as well as probably even the luxuries that the top stadiums currently have reserved only for the home team. I don't think that's even a concern. The league would make it as easy as possible for a visiting club to get off the plane and be set up and running as quickly and as comfortably as possible.

The "only" real hurdles are the aforementioned time zone difference and player-travel issues. IMO those simply can't be worked around at this time.

There's also the currency difference - players are working in London, so wouldn't they have to get paid in pounds? If I was a good player who knew he'd be there for more than a season, I'd probably try to establish residency and have my contract written to pay in pounds rather than USD with a conversion. That could expose the league to some risk if the dollar drops vs the pound (which correct me if I'm wrong has been historically stronger.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Searched:

Save the Raiders: Story about coaches from September.

Save the Chargers: UT San Diego stories from August about convention center expansion.

Save the Rams: Facebook page called "Keep the Rams in St. Louis" with 16,000 fans. The next event is "Turn Arrowhead blue and gold" on Oct. 26. (Whoa, good luck with that.) :)

So... are Rams fans just better at SEO? I really didn't expect to find much, but this is what we are looking for, correct? Or at least the seeds of it?

With the Chargers it's obvious why there's no effort to "Save" them. They're not even a threat to leave yet. The latest noise from them is that they want to put a San Diego stadium on the ballot in fall 2016. They've never said a thing about moving to Los Angeles other than to deny they've even talked with anyone from LA nevermind explored moving. And the news out of the NFL seems to back that. Rams and Raiders have both been in talks at varying times with LA interests... Chargers not so much.

That said I'm sure you'll see some effort arise in late 2015 or early 2016 as the vote for the new stadium gets closer.

So you're saying the Chargers are safe because they've made no threats to leave and denied having L.A. talks while options are still being explored at their current home -- even though their lease is year-to-year and they are mentioned in every relocation article? Hmmm... sounds familiar. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Searched:

Save the Raiders: Story about coaches from September.

Save the Chargers: UT San Diego stories from August about convention center expansion.

Save the Rams: Facebook page called "Keep the Rams in St. Louis" with 16,000 fans. The next event is "Turn Arrowhead blue and gold" on Oct. 26. (Whoa, good luck with that.) :)

So... are Rams fans just better at SEO? I really didn't expect to find much, but this is what we are looking for, correct? Or at least the seeds of it?

With the Chargers it's obvious why there's no effort to "Save" them. They're not even a threat to leave yet. The latest noise from them is that they want to put a San Diego stadium on the ballot in fall 2016. They've never said a thing about moving to Los Angeles other than to deny they've even talked with anyone from LA nevermind explored moving. And the news out of the NFL seems to back that. Rams and Raiders have both been in talks at varying times with LA interests... Chargers not so much.

That said I'm sure you'll see some effort arise in late 2015 or early 2016 as the vote for the new stadium gets closer.

So you're saying the Chargers are safe because they've made no threats to leave and denied having L.A. talks while options are still being explored at their current home -- even though their lease is year-to-year and they are mentioned in every relocation article? Hmmm... sounds familiar. :)

Actually their lease isn't year to year ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Searched:

Save the Raiders: Story about coaches from September.

Save the Chargers: UT San Diego stories from August about convention center expansion.

Save the Rams: Facebook page called "Keep the Rams in St. Louis" with 16,000 fans. The next event is "Turn Arrowhead blue and gold" on Oct. 26. (Whoa, good luck with that.) :)

So... are Rams fans just better at SEO? I really didn't expect to find much, but this is what we are looking for, correct? Or at least the seeds of it?

With the Chargers it's obvious why there's no effort to "Save" them. They're not even a threat to leave yet. The latest noise from them is that they want to put a San Diego stadium on the ballot in fall 2016. They've never said a thing about moving to Los Angeles other than to deny they've even talked with anyone from LA nevermind explored moving. And the news out of the NFL seems to back that. Rams and Raiders have both been in talks at varying times with LA interests... Chargers not so much.

That said I'm sure you'll see some effort arise in late 2015 or early 2016 as the vote for the new stadium gets closer.

So you're saying the Chargers are safe because they've made no threats to leave and denied having L.A. talks while options are still being explored at their current home -- even though their lease is year-to-year and they are mentioned in every relocation article? Hmmm... sounds familiar. :)
I don't think that's what he's saying.

The Raiders have openly admitted to talking to LA groups; we have been hearing nothing Rams to LA talk and rumors for the last couple years; with the Chargers, the only topic they've discussed about Los Angeles is they'll vote against any team trying to move there.

The Chargers aren't really a threat to move as compared to the Raiders and Rams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was a team in London, there would no doubt be a "permanent" facility for visitors, which would be stocked with whatever non-team-specific supplies would be needed, as well as probably even the luxuries that the top stadiums currently have reserved only for the home team. I don't think that's even a concern. The league would make it as easy as possible for a visiting club to get off the plane and be set up and running as quickly and as comfortably as possible.

The "only" real hurdles are the aforementioned time zone difference and player-travel issues. IMO those simply can't be worked around at this time.

There's also the currency difference - players are working in London, so wouldn't they have to get paid in pounds? If I was a good player who knew he'd be there for more than a season, I'd probably try to establish residency and have my contract written to pay in pounds rather than USD with a conversion. That could expose the league to some risk if the dollar drops vs the pound (which correct me if I'm wrong has been historically stronger.)

That's a good point - the pound has historically kicked the dollar's ass.

And there's another factor; taxes.

I don't know how they're working it for the temp gig, but I suspect that all players who call London home on a more permanent basis will be subject to Inland Revenue, which is 20% basic rate tax on the first £31,865 over Personal Allowance, 40% higher rate tax on taxable income between £31,865 and £150,000 and 45% additional rate tax on taxable income over £150,000. That's a hefty hit by American millionaire standards, and will have to be worked into their compensation.

So payroll will be much higher for the London Whatsits than any other team, meaning an exemption from the salary cap (or at least an adjustment based on taxation rates). Which will make teams that play in California and other states with income tax in the US argue they should get a similar exemption/adjustment over teams in state income tax-free Florida and New Jersey. That amount isn't such a big deal between states, but the gulf will be much bigger once Her Majesty's government gets a hand in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or base the team in NY so we here and fly the "home" team to London with the road team. No competitive disadvantage for the visitors, but the London team essentially plays 16 road games. It'd fix some of the issues though.

Also Would English fans really get behind a team that would probably not in their lifetimes have a British-born player?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Searched:

Save the Raiders: Story about coaches from September.

Save the Chargers: UT San Diego stories from August about convention center expansion.

Save the Rams: Facebook page called "Keep the Rams in St. Louis" with 16,000 fans. The next event is "Turn Arrowhead blue and gold" on Oct. 26. (Whoa, good luck with that.) :)

So... are Rams fans just better at SEO? I really didn't expect to find much, but this is what we are looking for, correct? Or at least the seeds of it?

With the Chargers it's obvious why there's no effort to "Save" them. They're not even a threat to leave yet. The latest noise from them is that they want to put a San Diego stadium on the ballot in fall 2016. They've never said a thing about moving to Los Angeles other than to deny they've even talked with anyone from LA nevermind explored moving. And the news out of the NFL seems to back that. Rams and Raiders have both been in talks at varying times with LA interests... Chargers not so much.

That said I'm sure you'll see some effort arise in late 2015 or early 2016 as the vote for the new stadium gets closer.

So you're saying the Chargers are safe because they've made no threats to leave and denied having L.A. talks while options are still being explored at their current home -- even though their lease is year-to-year and they are mentioned in every relocation article? Hmmm... sounds familiar. :)
Actually their lease isn't year to year ;)
http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=11671473&src=desktop

The Chargers also have a year-to-year lease with the City of San Diego for Qualcomm Stadium. The agreement permits the team to terminate the lease at any time between Feb. 1 and May 1 of each calendar year.

I'm actually inclined to trust you more than ESPN, though, so please elaborate.

I don't think that's what he's saying.

The Raiders have openly admitted to talking to LA groups; we have been hearing nothing Rams to LA talk and rumors for the last couple years; with the Chargers, the only topic they've discussed about Los Angeles is they'll vote against any team trying to move there.

The Chargers aren't really a threat to move as compared to the Raiders and Rams.

Again, my question is why? We trust the Chargers' company line more than the Rams' under the same circumstances? We choose to dismiss the Burwell report and the "Raiders to the NFC" rumor (probably wise on the latter) but accept Florio and LaCanfora at their anonymously-sourced word and believe the hype that Farmers Field is still a possibility even though the NFL has all but dismissed it. It's interesting to me.

We act as if Kroenke has been parading around L.A. like Davis in San Antonio. I don't recall that. He has a piece of land that was slotted for a Wal-Mart at one point and likely isn't the prime spot that the NFL wants for its Super Bowl palace. It sounds like the site could be expanded to that and come under NFL control, but we're still a few dots away from making that connection.

Right now there are zero spots for 3 teams playing relocation musical chairs. The NFL has shown that it will take any modern chair for teams staying in their existing markets, but they have some kind of luxury love seat in mind for L.A.

I enjoy this thread, but have no dog in this fight, so I'm going to step away for a while and leave you with a :) so the conversation can flow to London or wherever. My position has probably been stated enough. I know it's an unpopular opinion. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.