NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[Mac the Knife]

Jerry Jones saying Jerry Jones things (go half way or so through):

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/sports/football/buffalo-bills-make-it-official-rex-ryan-is-their-coach.html

It's nothing that hasn't already been discussed by all speculative parties, but this is the most recognizable league owner saying "yeah, bylaws, whatever."

Jerry's talking out of school there, and I wouldn't be surprised if Roger doesn't rap his knuckles for it.

On the other hand, he's technically correct. Short of revoking a franchise (which the NFL's empowered to do, but as with Donald Sterling in the NBA would bring with it God knows what), declaring that it has no territorial rights where it's moved to (opening the door for others to enter the same market), or possibly omitting the relocated franchise from the league schedule? Yeah, he's right.

But does anyone really think a franchise relocation to Los Angeles wouldn't garner 24 votes out of 31 (the Raiders, as always, abstaining)? Who aside from the Chargers would vote "No?"

[The_Admiral]

The Bears. In an old Forbes valuation of NFL teams, they wrote that Michael McCaskey would pride himself on making sure everyone spoke politely and followed parliamentary rules of order. Michael's not in power anymore, but the McCaskeys are still and forever the kind of weirdos who would take joy in making sure everyone is nice and follows the rules.

EDIT: oh, no, it was an owner ranking:

https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-ownersrankingspartone072208

McCaskey, the nominal head of the league’s Super Bowl committee, takes that role very seriously: Before the most recent vote he reminded his fellow owners how important it was to be polite during the presentations, earning eye rolls throughout the room.

DORK

[STL FANATIC]

^ I'll bet deep down he's a Cardinals fan.

To the original question, it wouldn't shock me if they could muster up 9 owners not to vote for the move. Not all for the same reason, necessarily.

The Chargers are a given. You'd think the Raiders would vote against it if they voted. And if they abstain, that's as good as a vote against in this case (I believe).

An owner like McCaskey may be upset about a lack of respect for the rules. He may not be alone in that.

Other owners might not be big fans of Kroenke. It's been reported he's not particularly well liked, flaunting their rules and playing by his own. It wouldn't shock me if Shad Khan voted against it. I could say it's because he likes St. Louis, but I'm not sure that's enough. More likely would be the fact that Kroenke undercut Khan's bid to by the Rams. Sure it was Kroenke's right, but he waited until the absolute last night to let it be known. Khan may not be his biggest fan.

That's only 4, of course. It just wouldn't shock me if there's more. Maybe the Broncos don't like him from their dealings together in Denver (or maybe they do). I don't know. But I don't think it's crazy.

Now, if they believed this was the one and only way to get to LA, THEN it'd be crazy. Then I suspect the vote would go in his favor regardless. But they may feel like they have other options (and they probably do, it just depends on how long they'll want to wait).

Not saying it's likely. Just saying it's possible.

[rams80]

Rams give the NFL a modification of the St. Louis deal wrt to only PSL money and/or relinquish some of their revenue sharing money for the next 5 years. Bribery works folks.

[The_Admiral]

The Sonics moving to Oklahoma City made the NBA weaker, and the only two owners to vote against it were Paul Allen because of travel and Mark Cuban because he liked to piss off Stern.

[STL FANATIC]

For what it's worth, I don't really think they'll ultimately stop Kroenke if he's persistent (as opposed to choosing some alternative path). But I could see them delaying him a year.

On the other hand, the league itself has delayed him a year already, and maybe by the time it comes up next year they'll just let him walk.

[IceCap]

I mean yeah, they could probably muster up enough votes to block the move if they tried, but it won't matter. If Stan wants to go to LA he's going whether or not the NFL says he can.

[STL FANATIC]

I mean yeah, they could probably muster up enough votes to block the move if they tried, but it won't matter. If Stan wants to go to LA he's going whether or not the NFL says he can.

Actually, this I'm still less sure of. There are some pretty severe penalties in place for an owner who does that. Stan may not want to deal with those penalties.

But more likely is he's able to convince, pressure, or swing a deal to get the owners to ignore the relocation rules themselves and simply approve a move.

Wouldn't rule anything out with him, though. Ultimately he'll do what he wants. But he's not an idiot, so he's not going to take penalties that he could otherwise avoid. His outcome won't change, just the methods in which he accomplishes it.

[Mac the Knife]

True, though the NFL uses the term "relocation fee" rather than "penalty" in such cases. I forget how much Georgia Frontiere & Co. had to surrender in order to get into the St. Louis market, but it was hardly chump change.

[dfwabel]

True, though the NFL uses the term "relocation fee" rather than "penalty" in such cases. I forget how much Georgia Frontiere & Co. had to surrender in order to get into the St. Louis market, but it was hardly chump change.

She had to pay $30M* in a relocation fee plus $17M ofthe $74M in PSL money raised by FANS, Inc. Another large portion of the FANS, Inc. money went to pay off the debt of expanding Anaheim Stadium.

*- That would be about $48M in 2015.

[STL FANATIC]

True, though the NFL uses the term "relocation fee" rather than "penalty" in such cases. I forget how much Georgia Frontiere & Co. had to surrender in order to get into the St. Louis market, but it was hardly chump change.

I believe it's more than relocation fees (unless they lump it together) I read something yesterday about shared revenue from television as well as merchandising being cut off.

I was under the impression even approved moves are subject to relocation fees now, but maybe that's incorrect.

Here's what I read:

Former longtime Oakland Raiders executive Amy Trask also revealed a little-known fact to the Post-Dispatch last week, namely that there are provisions in place to deter teams from relocating without league approval.

“These safeguards are really draconian,” she said. “They involve financial penalties and other penalties that really should deter teams from doing things like that without (league approval).”

Among them are forfeitures of part of a team’s annual share of leaguewide television revenue. Another is forfeiture of a team’s share of leaguewide income from NFL Properties — the league’s merchandising arm.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/jones-says-kroenke-has-the-right-to-move/article_03b191af-dd5b-5169-987a-3448aafcc963.html

[Mac the Knife]

True, though the NFL uses the term "relocation fee" rather than "penalty" in such cases. I forget how much Georgia Frontiere & Co. had to surrender in order to get into the St. Louis market, but it was hardly chump change.

She had to pay $30M* in a relocation fee plus $17M ofthe $74M in PSL money raised by FANS, Inc. Another large portion of the FANS, Inc. money went to pay off the debt of expanding Anaheim Stadium.

*- That would be about $48M in 2015.

$ 50 million? Even if it's twice that, that's a rap on the knuckles to move into an open Los Angeles market.

[dfwabel]

True, though the NFL uses the term "relocation fee" rather than "penalty" in such cases. I forget how much Georgia Frontiere & Co. had to surrender in order to get into the St. Louis market, but it was hardly chump change.

She had to pay $30M* in a relocation fee plus $17M ofthe $74M in PSL money raised by FANS, Inc. Another large portion of the FANS, Inc. money went to pay off the debt of expanding Anaheim Stadium.

*- That would be about $48M in 2015.

$ 50 million? Even if it's twice that, that's a rap on the knuckles to move into an open Los Angeles market.

That number is just by using the CPI as the inflation multiplying tool, not whatever the NFL owners come to the table with now.

[STL FANATIC]

I've seen speculation that a relocation fee today would be $200-500 million (perhaps with the fact that LA is the likely market). But I'm not sure that's been anything more than speculation.

[STL FANATIC]

NFL Executive VP Eric Grubman was in St. Louis today meeting with the task force. He didn't say anything ground-breaking publicly today, but he DID officially acknowledge some things for the first time.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/nfl-exec-st-louis-must-build-new-stadium-to-keep/article_1683d7d6-ddf1-545f-9c95-5f5b6d6a4ff4.html

Basically, Kroenke is looking at other options, and any solution to the Rams issue will involve a new stadium. Things that are pretty obvious, but after silence from all parties for so long, I kind of appreciate any honesty at this point.

Also, MLS Commissioner Don Garber said he's coming to St. Louis to discuss the new stadium and acknowledged "momentum" for a franchise in St. Louis.

Tom Timmermann @tomtimm

Per @SoccerInsider, MLS commish Garber: I am going to be out in St. Louis in the next couple of weeks. St Louis has got a lot of activity...

... going on with a stadium they are trying to get done for the Rams. There is a big soccer community there and we would love to see ...

Last Garber: ... the soccer stadium downtown like they are thinking about with a football stadium.

https://twitter.com/tomtimm

Pretty sure that at this point I'd rather just see a soccer-specific stadium built at the same location. Needs less parking so you can save the buildings. Needs to be less in general, so you can save a lot of money.

And if there's an owner that at some point likes the idea of St. Louis, then they can see if there's a way to build a football stadium in a better spot for a football stadium. (This spot is a fine spot IF a sea of surface parkings isn't required. But if it is, I'm not a huge fan.)

[Gothamite]

Jerry Jones saying Jerry Jones things (go half way or so through):

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/sports/football/buffalo-bills-make-it-official-rex-ryan-is-their-coach.html

It's nothing that hasn't already been discussed by all speculative parties, but this is the most recognizable league owner saying "yeah, bylaws, whatever."

And here's former Raiders exec Amy Trask essentially agreeing with him, explaining that the bylaws are "guidelines": http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/RadioShows/FeatureInterviews/tabid/339/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/16072/Former-Raiders-CEO-Amy-Trask-Talks-Stan-Kroenke-Rams-Future-and-Stadium-Proposal.aspx

[The_Admiral]

Amy Trask throwin' shade: "those are some neat drawings you guys have there!"

[Gothamite]

Yeah, pretty sly.

She's not wrong, though; they are nice drawings, and they don't have much more than that in their plan.

The "guidelines" thing is important, if any other owners share her opinion. A potent rebuttal to anyone who keeps referring to the bylaws as though they were carved on stone tablets.

[The_Admiral]

She sounds like the mother of a first-grader complimenting her son's crayon-drawn robot dragon Kobe Bryant.

[STL FANATIC]

More to Eric Grubman's visit to St. Louis. Again, not a lot of true news, but some notes.

• The NFL agrees that this isn't a real plan until they have the funding in place and acquire the land.

• The NFL thinks they're on a fine track, but suggests they'll have to have everything ready to go by the end of the year, preferably sooner.

• St. Louis officials are on board with the plan (but of course won't comment on the need for a vote or lack thereof).

• St. Louis officials are more optimistic after meeting with Grubman than they previously were.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_1683d7d6-ddf1-545f-9c95-5f5b6d6a4ff4.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2015/01/16/slay-st-louis-plan-will-make-it-difficult-for-rams.html