NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[STL FANATIC]

Yeah, the Rams have sucked for years, but the NFL sees that St. Louis can't even sell out a venue for just 8 days out of 365.

But there are probably 8-12 other franchises that don't fill their stadium (and let's use that term, because ticket sales are too easily skewed—the Rams have sold out for a lot of consecutive years) for 8 dates either, including maybe 5 or 6 that have struggled to do so for many years now.

And in almost every case, it's because their football team is terrible. It's a really, really simple cause and effect.

The reason the Rams are victim to the actual possibility of relocation is because they have an opening in their lease. And the reason they've always been victim to fan fueled relocation speculation is because fans don't think of the Rams as traditionally belonging in St. Louis.

The Bucs have struggled with attendance for a long time (ya know, because they've been terrible at football). But they've been there since 1976, so they don't get brought up by fans. And that'd be easily explained by the fact that they also don't have a lease/stadium issue, but neither do the Jags, and they're brought up constantly.

But back to reality, the Rams aren't unique in their struggles to draw fans to a crappy product. Not at all. They're just unique in that they have the lease issue. If what you're saying were true, the NFL would just cut back to about 20-24 teams. (And then they'd probably need to cut back more when the reorganization created new bottom feeders and "bad" fanbases.)

The NFL isn't unique. You won't find many regions that want to go see a bad team. The product matters, and the NFL isn't above that very simple principle.

[rams80]

Look at Cleveland. Look at Kansas City. Their fans weren't jumping ship 3 years into the market or 5 years removed from the Super Bowl. Hell, they've filled up the EJD despite having crappy teams of their own when they played the Rams.

[STL FANATIC]

I don't see how they could be officially a lame-duck team, since the NFL only accepts and votes on relocation applications during January and February.

Wasn't the Browns move announced or leaked mid season? I was in college then and there wasn't really much internet, but certainly that wasn't voted on in February - unless it was just the intent that leaked, and the vote was just a formality.

If that's the case, and everyone knows that the intent is there and the vote in Jan/Feb '16 is just a formality, would Goodell let them buy out their lease and play a year either in LA or somewhere else (could use it as a test for future relo). Obviously there's work that would have to happen with networks and travel and there's not a lot of time, but it's the godsdamn NFL - they could pull it off. One season of San Antonio Rams?

Wikipedia says they announced it while 4-5, so yeah, it was mid-season.

Frankly, I think it may be more likely that Kroenke pulls a Bob Irsay and moves overnight, NFL wishes be damned. He clearly isn't interested in being subservient to their rules or their guidelines for LA. He might have a little Al Davis in him, too, and just dare the league to fight him.

I realized this earlier. It shows the way he tries to flip "rules" on their head and make his own power moves on his own time.

On Nov. 5, 2014, Governor Jay Nixon announced his stadium task force. He gave them a 60-day window to finalize a plan. Two hours and 48 minutes (central time) into the 61st day, Stan Kroenke released his LA stadium plan.

On Feb. 11, 2014, the Rams announced that Shad Khan had reached an agreement to buy the majority share of the Rams. Stan Kroenke had 60 days to exercise his contractually-granted right of first refusal to buy that majority share. On the 60th night, Kroenke released his intent to purchase that share.

[Island_Style]

Look at Cleveland. Look at Kansas City. Their fans weren't jumping ship 3 years into the market or 5 years removed from the Super Bowl. Hell, they've filled up the EJD despite having crappy teams of their own when they played the Rams.

Let me tell you about the 24 other franchises that don't do that.

[Gothamite]

I don't see how they could be officially a lame-duck team, since the NFL only accepts and votes on relocation applications during January and February.

Wasn't the Browns move announced or leaked mid season? I was in college then and there wasn't really much internet, but certainly that wasn't voted on in February - unless it was just the intent that leaked, and the vote was just a formality.

If that's the case, and everyone knows that the intent is there and the vote in Jan/Feb '16 is just a formality, would Goodell let them buy out their lease and play a year either in LA or somewhere else (could use it as a test for future relo). Obviously there's work that would have to happen with networks and travel and there's not a lot of time, but it's the godsdamn NFL - they could pull it off. One season of San Antonio Rams?

The Browns was a long time ago - under current NFL rules, there's no way that a team can officially be a lame duck.

But let's say that Kroenke makes his intent clear, and that he has the votes to move when eligible. I don't know why on earth they would play an interim year in a third city rather than just heading right to LA and the waiting Rose Bowl. What possible purpose could he have in not getting to his new hometown immediately?

[The_Admiral]

I'd love it if he Irsayed the team just for the lulz, and because it could be the last straw for Rodge's authority.

[colortv]

Now the dominos begin to fall with the Raiders and Chargers. Should be interesting.

[Mac the Knife]

The Chargers would also fit decently as it concerns divisional alignment. St. Louis isn't exactly west (but oh yeah, we're already in the most westward division), but it would have a nice rivalry with Kansas City. But that would feel weirder to everyone because it's the Chargers and not a crummy and still relatively new expansion team.

If the Rams go, they stay in the NFC West and there's no change. If the Jags go to LA (as part of a franchise swap with St. Louis), realignment would be simple: Los Angeles in the NFC West, St. Louis moves to the NFC South. If the NFL can have its Indianapolis franchise in the AFC South, why can't it have St. Louis in the NFC South?

I like the (impossible) idea of trading the Rams for the Jags then moving the Jags, except... I'd like them to somehow still be the LA Rams. That would create a ridiculous Browns/Hornets bogus history type thing of course, but whatever - the league makes it up as it goes along, and is (as that Cowboys game showed us) only one step above WWE anyway.

In 1973, Carol Rosenbloom and Robert Irsay did it in a transaction in which they essentially traded the Colts and the Rams. The Montreal Expos ownership essentially traded that franchise for the Florida Marlins. Why couldn't something like that be done again?

I would rather cheer for a 0-16 Jacksonville Jags than a 16-0 Los Angeles Jags.

Perhaps, but if 90,000 fans are willing to pay to sit in the seats to watch the 16-0 Los Angeles Jaguars? You'll not be missed much.

I'd love it if he Irsayed the team just for the lulz, and because it could be the last straw for Rodge's authority.

I can see Mark Davis doing this (after all, Dad did it), but I think only if suddenly the San Diego situation got a lot more unstable. Everyone within the NFL now accepts the Rams as the only really viable NFC team to go to Los Angeles, and despite what some say I doubt they're going to allow two AFC teams to move and then realign, moving one to the NFC. Never say never, but it's unlikely. The order seems to be (1) Rams, (2) Raiders, and (3) Chargers, if they decide to go.

[BBTV]

I don't see how they could be officially a lame-duck team, since the NFL only accepts and votes on relocation applications during January and February.

Wasn't the Browns move announced or leaked mid season? I was in college then and there wasn't really much internet, but certainly that wasn't voted on in February - unless it was just the intent that leaked, and the vote was just a formality.

If that's the case, and everyone knows that the intent is there and the vote in Jan/Feb '16 is just a formality, would Goodell let them buy out their lease and play a year either in LA or somewhere else (could use it as a test for future relo). Obviously there's work that would have to happen with networks and travel and there's not a lot of time, but it's the godsdamn NFL - they could pull it off. One season of San Antonio Rams?

The Browns was a long time ago - under current NFL rules, there's no way that a team can officially be a lame duck.

But let's say that Kroenke makes his intent clear, and that he has the votes to move when eligible. I don't know why on earth they would play an interim year in a third city rather than just heading right to LA and the waiting Rose Bowl. What possible purpose could he have in not getting to his new hometown immediately?

Only if 1- coliseum or Rose Bowl said they couldn't support it next year (unlikely), or 2- they want to make a smash in LA and hit the ground running in the state of the art stadium and not put the taste of a cranky experience back in people's mouths after letting it wash away for 20 years.

Yes, an interim site would be unusual and unlikely, but possibly preferable to STL if no immediate LA option exists.

[Gothamite]

I think the big splash in LA comes immediately after the relocation announcement - people will want to buy merchandise and season tickets and everything in the immediate rush of "we've got a team!"

Every month that goes by after the announcement dims the excitement and forces the team to work harder and spend more money to get it back. Seems incredibly foolish to put off the move for any reason other than the lack of vaguely appropriate venue in which to play. So long as the Coliseum or the Rose Bowl or Occidental College's stadium can host, they'd move the day of their press conference.

[rams80]

The Rams as an organization are in a position to make that splash-they're really only a couple of pieces away from a playoff berth. Indeed, I think the franchise is kind of in a holding pattern waiting for the Los Angeles move to make that final push.

[CubsFanBudMan]

The Rose Bowl is the designated temp stadium, but only for one team, and not until 2016.

The temp venue is a way to double-dip. Best-case scenario: L.A. fans go nuts to see the NFL back, and then a year or two later go nuts again for a new stadium. Add a good team during that stretch and you can hook a lot of fish.

(And if you're the Oilers, wait a couple years to change the name and get a second local merchandise bump.*)

* Name change likely does not apply in Los Angeles.

[TheOldRoman]

Assuming the Rams are the first team to LA, I think the Raiders would have to be the second. Not only would the Raiders have the previous and existing fanbase in LA, but they would offer the renegade image which would give people a reason to root for a second team (not to mention it looks like the Rams might be really good by then). I think the Chargers coming in as the second team would be in a much worse situation. They'd have no LA history in 50 years, be the second team after everybody already got excited for the Rams, and likely continue tripping over their own feet. They wouldn't have much to offer fans unless they were good and the Rams sucked.

[Gothamite]

Temp venue in the same city, sure. But not a limited stay in a totally different market. You mention the Oilers. How'd that temporary home work for them, again?

[STL FANATIC]

The Rams as an organization are in a position to make that splash-they're really only a couple of pieces away from a playoff berth. Indeed, I think the franchise is kind of in a holding pattern waiting for the Los Angeles move to make that final push.

This would mean that Jeff Fisher and Les Snead are privy to the LA move OR that Stan Kroenke is particularly involved in the Rams personnel decisions.

I find both unlikely. Stan might well open his budget a bit more (although the Rams are already pressed up against the cap, so I'm not sure it matters) in LA, but I don't think they're holding anything back.

[guest23]

Yeah announcing an intention to plan to build is by no means a done deal. MO will likely scramble and dig up some taxpayer $$$ to save the rams from leaving. If not, there's still a long way to go in order to break ground in inglewood. Hell I remember when the seahawks announced they were moving to LA and actually held practices in anaheim.

If the MO hail mary fails you, could maybe see the team change uniforms after they relocate and the team is sold. There's been speculation that kroenke wants to own the broncos and has no intention of retaining ownership of the rams if they move to LA.

[oldschoolvikings]

Keep in mind, I'm a Jags super fan. (No duh) but from what I have seen, Khan isn't leaving Jax. He has invested so much money. I'm sure this could be owner speak, but he has expressed his love for Jax. Why does he love it? It's Florida! Potential galore. He has houses in Florida. He is a self made extravagant billionaire. Where he lays his head is home. He is traveled. He isnt home sick. Hell, look at this picture.

So glad the Rams owner did what he did. It saved my franchise. Khan would have kept that team in St Louis. Kroenke had a plan when he bought St Louis. Look at him. He is dirtier than my underwear three days after I should have done the laundry.

Holy crap, look at that goofball. The best part of this post is when you say everyone should "look" at Kroenke after posting that picture of Khan. OK, Kroenke may look dirty (I don't know. I've never seem him) but that guy looks like Geraldo Rivera and Saddam Hussein had a duchebag party baby.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Temp venue in the same city, sure. But not a limited stay in a totally different market. You mention the Oilers. How'd that temporary home work for them, again?

Right. Don't go the Memphis route. Go all in early or be a lame duck and own it. Double-dipping won't work in a temp market, only a temp stadium in a destination market.

[Tigers6884]

Apparently not many people here besides STL FANATIC and I want the Rams to stay in St. Louis.

[Gothamite]

It's not necessarily about what anyone "wants", but what we think is more likely to happen. And for the Rams, the evidence has for years pointed towards a return to LA.

St. Louis could have gotten ahead of the issue years ago, before they were contractually required to. Once they failed to do so, they opened a Mayflower truck-sized hole in the lease.

The Rams as an organization are in a position to make that splash-they're really only a couple of pieces away from a playoff berth. Indeed, I think the franchise is kind of in a holding pattern waiting for the Los Angeles move to make that final push.

This would mean that Jeff Fisher and Les Snead are privy to the LA move OR that Stan Kroenke is particularly involved in the Rams personnel decisions.

I find both unlikely. Stan might well open his budget a bit more (although the Rams are already pressed up against the cap, so I'm not sure it matters) in LA, but I don't think they're holding anything back.

I agree completely. It's absurd to think they're holding back on anything. If their work finally comes to fruition at the same time as the relocation, that's bitter irony and not by design.