NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[rams80]

Real talk time, though, the Inglewood stadium can get the official green light in less than two weeks. There's not enough time for your plan.

[STL FANATIC]

That's almost certainly true, but as for whether the two weeks matters, we'll just have to see if they'll truly build this thing on spec. Or perhaps if they do start building it, it's less about building it on spec and more about Kroenke saying he's moving and it doesn't matter what St. Louis does. I'm skeptical ground will be broken for the stadium any sooner than the fall, though.

[STL FANATIC]

One minor tidbit: I don't think the NFL would allow two teams from the same city, to play in the same division and the same conference. So it's either going to be the Raiders OR the Chargers, not both.

I believe this is the least of the NFL's concerns when it comes to who moves.

If it works out that those are the two teams who strike to move first, the NFL will let two teams in the same division play there, or they'll swap one of them with the Rams. Either case would work just fine.

Whacky divisions for the sake of old rivalries are getting stupid anyways, but assuming they want to protect them, there's no particular reason those two teams couldn't both play in LA in the same division. 1. The idea of someone having an NFC team and an AFC team isn't all that likely in this day and age. That's not a particularly meaningful distinction any more. 2. Those teams already have pretty established fan bases, even in LA. They wouldn't really be competing against each other to build a base anyways.

[rams80]

Regardless of the recent changes, the basic TV packages are sold at the Conference level. How Los Angeles is divvied up damn well matters.

[STL FANATIC]

Maybe. I think that could be worked out pretty easily.

It's not as though the AFC gets money and the NFC gets money. The NFL gets and shares all the money. What it would mean is that the AFC package would cost more for CBS because presumably they'd get a bigger return. I'm not sure why they have to pretend both packages are worth the exact same amount. If one is worth more, one is worth more, and the network that gets it will have to spend more to do so. In the end, the NFL is still getting roughly the same amount of money.

Beyond that, you could flip individual games around to balance things out. That already happens.

But even if it really is a big deal, then you swap the Rams (again, in the instance where they do not move and the Chargers and Raiders do) for one of those teams and get on with it.

[IceCap]

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.

Ah. My mistake then.

I didn't say ANYTHING about trading teams.

No, but what you did say is just as preposterous.

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.

The simplest way for him to solve the ownership situation in Denver would be to spend millions more on another NFL team? No.

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.

I just don't see it. By all accounts the NFL actually seems pretty keen on Stan's stadium plan. The only thing we've heard about re: the Chargers and LA are vague whispers and rumours. Stan, on the other hand, owns the land, has the money, and has cleared the legal barriers to building a stadium. If it's between the Chargers and Stan-owned Rams? It's the Rams who have the means to get their shovels in the ground first. Simple as that.

As to the bold part? Why would the Bowlen family have to do anything? Bowlen shot this absurd rumour down the moment it popped up. He's not interested in selling the Broncos.

I can certainly appreciate civic/local pride, but it's all just too much. It REALLY looks like the Rams are leaving. Playing Baghdad Bob is only going to make you look worse when the moving trucks finally do show up.

If it's any consolation you can rest easy knowing it was only the Rams who were lost. St. Louis will survive, and it probably won't even bother the city long-term.

[The_Admiral]

It's not as though the AFC gets money and the NFC gets money. The NFL gets and shares all the money. What it would mean is that the AFC package would cost more for CBS because presumably they'd get a bigger return. I'm not sure why they have to pretend both packages are worth the exact same amount.

Do they? I thought Fox paid much more for the NFC. They wouldn't be happy with CBS getting more for less.

[STL FANATIC]

That last full-fledged theory was tongue-in-cheek. And while I'd argue that Kroenke buying the Broncos isn't preposterous whatsoever, I acknowledged it's extremely unlikely.

The reason the Bowlens have to do something is because Pat Bowlen has Alzheimers and has stepped aside. They've yet to figure out if one of his children is capable and interested in taking over the team, and if not they may sell. The NFL would like a decision sooner than later, though that's notably flexible.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_26575449/wholl-be-given-reins-broncos-ownership

Though it should be noted that that article also suggests that a sale of the team would almost automatically go to a John Elway group. (Of course, it also interestedly notes that Kroenke, Elway, and Bowlen once co-owned an Arena League team in Denver.)

Oh, and last note. The Kroenke family is likely to lose hundreds of millions in taxes if he passes the teams to his sons (which may or may not truly satisfy the NFL), and he has shown no indication that he's truly interested in selling the teams. So, yeah, I'm going to stand by the idea that it's the simplest way for him to solve the issue. The correct response might be that there is no simple way. But I still think that's the simplest.

It's not as though the AFC gets money and the NFC gets money. The NFL gets and shares all the money. What it would mean is that the AFC package would cost more for CBS because presumably they'd get a bigger return. I'm not sure why they have to pretend both packages are worth the exact same amount.

Do they? I thought Fox paid much more for the NFC. They wouldn't be happy with CBS getting more for less.

You might be right. I'd be surprised if they DID pretend they were worth the same. I'm just saying the idea that LA has to be split evenly suggest that they need to pretend that.

Now, if the issue is simply about what happens during the duration of the remaining contracts, as you more clearly suggest, well that's another story and a valid issue. I suspect they'd work something out, though. In fact, would you doubt that they have clauses in those contracts to account for LA already? I'm not saying they do, but I kind of bet they do.

[IceCap]

Oh, and last note. The Kroenke family is likely to lose hundreds of millions in taxes if he passes the teams to his sons (which may or may not truly satisfy the NFL)...

Of course it will satisfy the NFL. They wouldn't have granted him the extension if it didn't. Stop it.

...and he has shown no indication that he's truly interested in selling the teams. So, yeah, I'm going to stand by the idea that it's the simplest way for him to solve the issue. The correct response might be that there is no simple way. But I still think that's the simplest.

The simplest way is to unload the NFL team he does have and buy an NFL team worth more then the first team's worth, from a family that may not even be interested in selling? I really hope you can understand why I see this as being preposterous.

Either he transfers ownership of the Nuggets and Avalanche to his son and takes the tax hit or he tells the NFL "I'm not going to do it." As has been discussed, the NFL rules aren't set in stone and are only as enforceable as the collective NFL ownership feels they need to be. Even then they don't mean anything if a court of law shoots them down. Stan already owns the Rams. There isn't a judge in the country that will force him out because the NFL's arbitrary rule book, which isn't even legally binding, says so.

I certainly don't want this to sound personal, because it's not meant to be, but your position has deteriorated since Stan announced his plans for his LA stadium. It's over. Let it go. The NFL will be back in St. Louis sooner or later if they can make that nice drawing of theirs actually happen.

As far as the Rams go though? They've already got one foot out the door. The land is there. The money is there. The legal barriers have been cleared. Stan's LA football palace is going to be a thing. Stop arranging deckchairs on the Titanic and just come to terms with it. Denying it is only making you look like you're grasping for more and more straws as time goes on.

[STL FANATIC]

I wasn't clear that the extension was specifically about finding a way transfer the teams to his kids. I thought it was just in general about meeting the guidelines. I wasn't trying to be difficult.

And I don't have a position, I'm just discussing the various aspects of an interesting situation. Thanks for your input.

[rams80]

It's not as though the AFC gets money and the NFC gets money. The NFL gets and shares all the money. What it would mean is that the AFC package would cost more for CBS because presumably they'd get a bigger return. I'm not sure why they have to pretend both packages are worth the exact same amount.

Do they? I thought Fox paid much more for the NFC. They wouldn't be happy with CBS getting more for less.

Fox indeed pays more. I'm not sure how much more, but the NFC has the bigger markets. So yeah, the AFC package taking a huge jump in value won't go over well.

[Rockstar Matt]

That's what I was getting at. I think the TV deals would dictate both conference TV packages would each have a share of Los Angeles if there were two teams here.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Are we certain language isn't written into the TV deals concerning L.A. or market shifts in general?

It's not like a team in L.A. is a new concept. And as we've discussed before, the lines aren't as clear as they used to be. CBS aired a Bears-Vikings game this past season. There's flexibility built in.

Heck, aren't there three 9:30 a.m. ET London games this year?

EDIT: Why yes there are: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000462049/article/nfl-games-in-london-to-start-at-930-am-et-in-2015

[Gothamite]

I don't know if we know if there's any language to that effect in the contract.

That's almost certainly true, but as for whether the two weeks matters, we'll just have to see if they'll truly build this thing on spec. Or perhaps if they do start building it, it's less about building it on spec and more about Kroenke saying he's moving and it doesn't matter what St. Louis does. I'm skeptical ground will be broken for the stadium any sooner than the fall, though.

One clarification: it's not building on spec so long as he already owns a team to move into it.

[STL FANATIC]

I don't know if we know if there's any language to that effect in the contract.

That's almost certainly true, but as for whether the two weeks matters, we'll just have to see if they'll truly build this thing on spec. Or perhaps if they do start building it, it's less about building it on spec and more about Kroenke saying he's moving and it doesn't matter what St. Louis does. I'm skeptical ground will be broken for the stadium any sooner than the fall, though.

One clarification: it's not building on spec so long as he already owns a team to move into it.

I sorta noted that. It's spec if the Rams moving to LA isn't a guarantee. It's not spec if he knows he's moving them there whether obstacles are put in his way or not.

In any case, I think the 2 weeks cited by Rams80 was incorrect. The city council can approve something or other, but the public vote will probably not be until June. I'm not sure that changes anything at all as it's still well ahead of when the St. Louis plan would likely have any semblance of approval, but just wanted to clarify.

[Gothamite]

Speaking of timelines, one thing I'm waiting to hear about is whether what's-his-name, the former sportswriter, will file a lawsuit over public funds for the riverfront stadium.

No word so far, but that could be because we haven't a clue how Peacock et al actually intend to pay for it.

[Brian in Boston]

n any case, I think the 2 weeks cited by Rams80 was incorrect. The city council can approve something or other, but the public vote will probably not be until June.

The proposed ballot initiative that could take place in June would institute zoning changes allowing the stadium project to skip a lengthy review process. That said, the Inglewood City Council has the option to approve the zoning changes outright, which would eliminate the need for a public vote on a ballot initiative.

Bottom line? If the city council votes its outright approval for the zoning changes, there will be no public vote in June.

[Gothamite]

And there won't be any more significant obstacles to hurdle, unless an Inglewood citizen sues to force a public vote.

After the re-zoning, it's just FAA review and some cleanup details. By California standards, that's nothing.

[STL FANATIC]

n any case, I think the 2 weeks cited by Rams80 was incorrect. The city council can approve something or other, but the public vote will probably not be until June.

The proposed ballot initiative that could take place in June would institute zoning changes allowing the stadium project to skip a lengthy review process. That said, the Inglewood City Council has the option to approve the zoning changes outright, which would eliminate the need for a public vote on a ballot initiative.

Bottom line? If the city council votes its outright approval for the zoning changes, there will be no public vote in June.

Ahh. Interesting. Didn't realize that. Thanks for clarifying.

[STL FANATIC]

Minor news, but the Missouri Governor tweets that the St. Louis area construction trades have committed to building a stadium on a 24-hour schedule without overtime pay.

I'll say this. The big news conference may have lacked substance, but it wasn't just a pretend effort for show. They do continue to work and check off certain items. Yet to be seen whether they'll check off the biggest ones, though.