Jump to content

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay


duma
 Share

Recommended Posts

Maybe, but St. Louis' "fans" were awfully quick to pull the plug compared to most other NFL markets. Again, the attendance problems were manifesting before the bottom fell out on the field.

You've expressed this before. I've countered it before.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Some attendance issues did hit a little before the bottom feel out on the on-field performance, but there were reasons for that too. St. Louis isn't the most devoted fan base in the NFL. But it's not horrible either. Fan support is solid at worst. A well-run organization would get a lot of fans in the short-term, and if they could do that for more than 5 years, they'd actually develop generations of dedicated fans.

Or maybe St. Louis just isn't worth it as a market for the NFL.

You've been expressing remorse about Khan. The Jags have kind of blown chunks on the field the last few seasons and don't exactly look to be turning the corner any time soon. Regardless of his enthusiasm, what makes you think he would fix attendance, given your claims about St. Louisans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the primary "economic realities" facing a Chargers stadium plan in the Metro San Diego area:

* The majority of the residents of the City of San Diego - indeed, a majority of the population of San Diego County as a whole - are, regardless of political affiliation, fiscally conservative enough to dismiss the notion of investing significant public dollars into construction of a facility that will primarily benefit a privately-held major-professional sports franchise. This is particularly true in the wake of Petco Park's financing being "repaid" with lackluster on-field performances by the Padres.

* The Spanos Family does not possess the financial wherewithal - to say nothing of the pull - necessary to successfully own and operate a modern, major-pro sports team. While the average citizen undoubtedly looks longingly upon the Spanos Family's level of wealth and (supposed) influence, the fact of the matter is that no member of the Spanos clan is in a class with the likes of Stan Kroenke or Dan Gilbert or Bob Kraft, let alone Paul Allen or Steve Ballmer or Phil Anschutz.

Bottom line? The Spanos Family is looking for a significant handout in the last market in America that's likely to be willing to give them one. And their "mouthpiece" - Mark Fabiani - is making with the threats. The Chargers are as good as gone. The only question is whether the team will be sharing Kroenke's Hollywood Park stadium with the Rams, or setting-up shop across town at the AEG-financed Farmers Field?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, Khan is building an indoor practice facility and is about to announce a huge investment in to the Shipyards next week. Khan will not be in St Louis ever. I can't stress that enough.

I must say, I was wrong about Khan. He seems to at least be trying to make things work in Jacksonville.

Personally, I don't like the idea of giving these major markets like LA and STL multiple chances when they keep provong they do not have the ability to support a pro team. LA has lost the Chargers, Ram, Raiders...it's obvious that the population out there has better things to do than go to an NFL game. Same with St. Louis, although their issue is likely more economic than demographic-related.

Lets give some fresh cities a chance. They'd likely embrace and support an NFL team if they have not had one before.

Look how successful the replacement Cleveland Browns have been. The circumstances of losing their team was horrible for the fans, but the end result of fixing the situation has not exactly been great for the league. The new Browns only make the news when their players get arrested or suspended.

Same with Seattle and their quest to get a replacement Sonics team. Sometimes history doesn't go your way. It's life. You didn't go to the games when you had a team...and wonder why the owner wants to move to another market? You had your chance.

I know it's a money game and L.A. is a gigantic TV market that the league feels it needs to tap into, but they've blown it so many times with an NFL franchise, I don't believe we need to keep trying and repeating history.

p.s. LA has lost 4 teams if you count the 1926 LA Buccaneers :D

Of everything written above, those six words are the only ones which are correct. Circumstances change in time. Markets change. Aside from the occasional (or in some cases, consistent) PR embarrassment, it's all about dollars: who can get them from whom, and where they need to be to get the most of them. Simple as that. It isn't that one market is a failure, but merely that another presents a better financial opportunity. It's all relative.

No St.Louis doesn't deserve a third chance at an NFL Franchise both the Football Cardinals and Rams had to move because of bad attendance, playing in old stadiums and because of baseball's popularity in St.Louis along with Soccer's Popularity and to some extant Hockey and Basketball.

Los Angeles is a better Football Town than St.Louis and that the St.Louis Rams should move back to Los Angeles where they played there for 49 years

Fourth if you count the St. Louis Gunners. :D

Los Angeles is a better football town than St. Louis? That's like saying rye bread is better than pumpernickel. There's no objective way to prove or disprove it. One could argue that Los Angeles is such a great "football town" that it lost not one, but two NFL franchises in the same off-season. And that one of them chose to move to St. Louis rather than stay there. That don't necessarily make it so.

Again, it's all about business. Dollars, and how the largest number of them can be attained. Nothing more.

Well, I do believe that fans have an obligation to show up once relocation talk starts, or risk exposing the market as bad.

And you're wrong in that belief. If I operate the only candy store in Fort Lauderdale, and I announce to anyone who'll listen that if I can't get a more favorable lease in its newest shopping center, I'm going to move it to Miami because they've offered me a better deal? I shouldn't expect my clientele to start coming in droves, buying 20 pound boxes just because I might leave. I should expect them to say "Good luck in Miami" and stay away in droves.

Sure seems like it's down to a race in LA now. The Chargers all but admitted they're gone today basically giving the city of San Diego an ultimatum that a city funding scheme that gets 2/3rd voter approval will need to be passed. Which of course will never happen. And rumors of talks with AEG have flared back up.

The Chargers have an upper hand over the Raiders for the Los Angeles market if they get off the proverbial pot and start making behind the scenes overtures to Kronke and other owners whose last name isn't "Davis." The other 30 (again, not including Chuckie) know that if they only bide their time, the Raiders will get new ownership that doesn't remind everyone of all the bridges Al Davis napalmed in his Oakland-to-Los Angeles-to-Oakland history. The Raiders would be approved for relocation, but I doubt they'd be given preference over the Chargers (and certainly not the Rams) if it came down to a vote.

The official reason that rule exists is to preclude the Nuggets/Avs/etc. pimping the Rams during their own games/broadcasts.

The cross-ownership rule has been in effect for decades, and not once have I heard this as the rationale behind it.

The real reason it has existed is that there was once a time when the NFL considered other professional sports as a legitimate threat to its bottom line. That's no longer really the case and it's become arcane, but with as with a large chunk of the NFL's Constitution and Bylaws, it still exists because there are ancillary factors (e.g., regional TV networks and their ownership) involved.

If anyone really wants to dig into the nuts-and-bolts of NFL minutiae, download a copy of the NFL Constitution and Bylaws (www.nfl.com/static/content/public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf) (as of roughly 2006; some amendments have no doubt been made since then) and comb through them. But before you do, comb through all the resolutions that accompany it. You'll ultimately come to at least most of the following conclusions:

  1. The NFL's Constitution and Bylaws are woefully outdated in many respects, yet malleable.
  2. The NFL/NFLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement trumps everything, including the NFL's own Constitution and Bylaws.
  3. The NFL's Constitution and Bylaws are in effect a binding contract among its 32 "member clubs." As such, it's clear based on its language and established precedents that each of them have relinquished certain rights in exchange for participation in the league.
  4. With remarkably few exceptions, 2/3rds of the owners can decide whatever they want to (it used to be 3/4ths before the outcome of Davis v. NFL, but despite their own lawyers pleading with Pete Rozelle & Co. not to hold onto a 3/4ths vote requirement for relocation questions, they held firm until the judge ruled it onerous.)
  5. The question of franchise relocation is remarkably under-referenced in the actual Constitution and Bylaws. The "Relocation Policy" I posted a while back is in the form of a resolution, which has some weight but isn't set in concrete; like everything else, a 2/3rds vote can scrap it, waive it, or change it.
  6. The owners can enforce whatever they agree to against a particular team, but the mechanism for doing so is limited. This is also true of all the other leagues, which in part is why last year the NBA was preparing to initiate franchise revocation proceedings against Donald Sterling and the Los Angeles Clippers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Khan announced his Shipyard plans today. I really wanted an aquarium, but it still looks nice. The indoor practice facility looks cool. He also announced more changes to Everbank and released numbers. Everything is trending on the up. Despite having a putrid team, revenue grows. When they start winning, huge success will be afoot.


http://www.bigcatcountry.com/2015/2/17/8052205/shad-khan-presents-jacksonville-shipyards-project#4671450

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would I be harping on it? Of course I wouldn't be harping on it. Let's admit when we're humans and realize I would have zero reason to harp on it. Let's just acknowledge that's human nature and not unique to me or any of us.

Acknowledging biases is healthy, yes. I just can't buy into the moral outrage over the matter.

EDIT: Oh, by the way, why are you saying he's not technically violating the rules?

Didn't he hand over his Denver-based NHL and NBA teams to his son? Sure, it seems like a loophole, but from a technical standpoint? He's not in violation of the cross-market/cross-league "rule." Which is more of a polite suggestion then anything else, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what if he doesn't actually do it by then? It's not like the NFL or the rest of the owners are going to all of a sudden revoke the team or block a move to Los Angeles.

And like mentioned upthread, I've always thought that rule is kind of dumb. Not take away competing dollars? Any NFL team is already going to do that because it's the NFL. Not promote the team in other markets? They don't have to do that because, again, it's the NFL. Not be completely attentive to the team and focus on other assets? First, these guys all have their other businesses to take attention. Second, their NFL team will probably get the most attention because, again, it's the NFL. I really don't understand the function that rule supposedly serves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the idea is so that the business partners in the NFL aren't also competitors in other businesses, keep it cordial all around, although even that seems a stretch. I doubt they would block the owner of FedEx if the owner of UPS was already an owner, to use a very rough example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is presumed to be handing them over to his son, but hasn't yet. The NFL gave him an extension into April to do it.

Right. One concern likely being the tax implications on such a move. There's really not a good way for it to happen for him financially.

Which is why, no matter how much it's denied, it will be interesting to see if things play out long enough for the Broncos to be forced to make some kind of decision on their ownership succession plan.

There really isn't a more logical outcome than the one that has Kroenke buying the Broncos, and the Taylor family (of Enterprise) buying the Rams (with Dave Peacock owning a minority stake and acting as Chairman or whatever the term is). But as logical as it is, it's equally unlikely. I just won't write it off until something gives that makes it impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe, but St. Louis' "fans" were awfully quick to pull the plug compared to most other NFL markets. Again, the attendance problems were manifesting before the bottom fell out on the field.

You've expressed this before. I've countered it before.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Some attendance issues did hit a little before the bottom feel out on the on-field performance, but there were reasons for that too. St. Louis isn't the most devoted fan base in the NFL. But it's not horrible either. Fan support is solid at worst. A well-run organization would get a lot of fans in the short-term, and if they could do that for more than 5 years, they'd actually develop generations of dedicated fans.

Or maybe St. Louis just isn't worth it as a market for the NFL.

You've been expressing remorse about Khan. The Jags have kind of blown chunks on the field the last few seasons and don't exactly look to be turning the corner any time soon. Regardless of his enthusiasm, what makes you think he would fix attendance, given your claims about St. Louisans?

I mean, we've been over the part about whether St. Louis is worth it or not. St. Louis is definitely one of the markets the NFL would like to be in if they were hand-picking 32 and the stadium scenarios weren't a factor. I think arguing against that is silly.

But the stadium IS a factor, and so are other realities, and I agree, the NFL isn't likely going to do backflips to keep the market. It's not THAT valuable to them. But if it's not terribly hard on them, I think they'd like to be in St. Louis (with a new stadium).

As for Khan, my remorse has nothing to do with the on-field performance. More about the field itself. I don't blame Stan Kroenke (yet) for the Rams' on-field performance, nor do I blame Shad Khan (yet) for the Jags.

Owners can be responsible for bad on-field performance, and I think Frontiere (by way of trusting the wrong people), as you noted, can fall into that category. But Kroenke is mostly just recovering from that. He MAYBE made a mistake in hiring or at least keeping Fisher/Snead, but that's not totally clear yet, and it was his first hire. Similarly, Khan may have messed up his first round of coaching/GM decisions, but I don't automatically presume it makes him a bad owner as it comes to on-field performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There really isn't a more logical outcome than the one that has Kroenke buying the Broncos, and the Taylor family (of Enterprise) buying the Rams (with Dave Peacock owning a minority stake and acting as Chairman or whatever the term is). But as logical as it is, it's equally unlikely. I just won't write it off until something gives that makes it impossible.

:blink:

"Logical"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There really isn't a more logical outcome than the one that has Kroenke buying the Broncos, and the Taylor family (of Enterprise) buying the Rams (with Dave Peacock owning a minority stake and acting as Chairman or whatever the term is). But as logical as it is, it's equally unlikely. I just won't write it off until something gives that makes it impossible.

:blink:

"Logical"?

Well, this is one of the more popular pipe dreams the St. Louis-based fans have come up with to save their civic status symbol so it can go back to being politely ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There really isn't a more logical outcome than the one that has Kroenke buying the Broncos, and the Taylor family (of Enterprise) buying the Rams (with Dave Peacock owning a minority stake and acting as Chairman or whatever the term is). But as logical as it is, it's equally unlikely. I just won't write it off until something gives that makes it impossible.

:blink:

"Logical"?

I don't know. What's the right word? It fits together so perfectly, but perhaps logical was the wrong choice of words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is fantastical.

Yes, such a scheme would work perfectly towards what I can only presume is your desired result, which is Rams Yes, Stan No.

But trading football teams like they were Pokemon cards? And especially when one is worth about 2/3 of the other? All the while forgetting the 300-acre elephant in the room out West? No, "logical" isn't quite the word you're looking for. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say ANYTHING about trading teams.

It would be Kroenke selling the Rams and purchasing the Broncos, and it would be the simplest way for him to solve his ownership dilemma in Denver. Fair enough about it not addressing LA, though.

Let's really dig in there, then. Kroenke's push forces San Diego into action. They partner with AEG to play in Farmer's field. The Raiders join them. Kroenke's LA play is over; he buys the Broncos as the Bowlen family finally realizes they have to do something. Kroenke sells the Rams to St. Louis interests who then easily secure the needed funding to break ground on the new stadium.

Piece of cake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say ANYTHING about trading teams.

It would be Kroenke selling the Rams and purchasing the Broncos, and it would be the simplest way for him to solve his ownership dilemma in Denver. Fair enough about it not addressing LA, though.

Let's really dig in there, then. Kroenke's push forces San Diego into action. They partner with AEG to play in Farmer's field. The Raiders join them. Kroenke's LA play is over; he buys the Broncos as the Bowlen family finally realizes they have to do something. Kroenke sells the Rams to St. Louis interests who then easily secure the needed funding to break ground on the new stadium.

Piece of cake.

Madness.jpg

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.