NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[Cosmic]

I thought the NFL really didn't want a stadium in Carson. Could be wrong on this one.

They've had multiple Super Bowls in Glendale, so the sexiness of the stadium neighborhood is obviously a "would be nice" instead of a "must have".

[colortv]

There will not be 3 teams in LA. All it takes is a dose of common sense to realize that.

Two at the most so quiet that noise right now.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Here's a blog from the Arizona Cardinals website in October on the Raiders' willingness to switch to NFC:

http://blog.azcardinals.com/2014/10/08/the-nfl-l-a-and-raiders-in-nfc-west/

It mentions Seattle moving back to the AFC, but am I crazy to suggest that the Rams are a better fit with Kansas City and Denver as closer potential geographic rivalries *if* this Raiders-Chargers plan is the one that wins the favor of the NFL and St. Louis stays put? (Always thought the AFC South would be perfect, but Jacksonville is no longer in the L.A. running.) Plus Seattle's success in the NFC makes it hard to imagine they'd go willingly.

And I don't normally go to Forbes for my sports coverage, but I'm reading as much as I can on this new development and found this piece:

Unfortunately for Kroenke, this plan has been met with a ton of skepticism from owners around the NFL, at which point it was reported that he would be willing to relocate without league approval.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/vincentfrank/2015/02/20/raiders-chargers-stadium-plan-is-the-best-of-both-worlds-for-the-nfl/

First I'd heard of "tons of skepticism." I know we mentioned he might be going rogue at the time, but ever since things seemed to lean the other way. Until perhaps now, if the NFL throws their weight behind this plan. (Reading that story, at first I wasn't sure if the Forbes writer was even going to mention the Rams.)

And for good measure, CBS, AP (via Fox) and ESPN takes:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25074632/report-chargers-raiders-propose-joint-17-billion-stadium-in-la

The proposed stadium would be built on a 168-acre site in Carson on land that's already been purchased by the Raiders and Chargers. The tentative plan calls for the stadium to be privately financed.

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/raiders-chargers-plan-possible-shared-los-angeles-area-home-022015

The Chargers and Raiders statement says they will respect and adhere to the guidelines the league laid out...

And a plan remains alive for an NFL facility in downtown Los Angeles. That stadium known as Farmers Field, until recently the leading candidate for the NFL's return, now becomes a long shot with multiple competitors and no clear team attached.

http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=12351492

A source involved in the negotiations told ESPN.com's Arash Markazi that the Chargers came to Carson officials first with the stadium proposal nine months ago and that the Raiders later joined the talks, which intensified after St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke announced plans in January to build an 80,000-seat stadium in Inglewood...

A source told Markazi that a move to the NFC would not deter either the Chargers or Raiders from making the move to Los Angeles.

In January, the Chargers denied speculation emanating from St. Louis that the team had an agreement in place for a new stadium in Los Angeles.

Guess some people owe Andy Strickland of CBS Sports radio in St. Louis an apology. Or just a lucky guess?

http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=nflnation&id=159884

What do the denial quotes from that January story (also posted earlier in this very thread) say about the Chargers and their nine-month-old plan in light of yesterday's reveal?

"If we didnt want to be here, why would we have worked on this for 13 years?" Fabiani said. "There's been plenty of opportunities to move to Los Angeles. People forget Ed Roski has had a stadium entitled in the City of Industry since 2008. And by entitled, I mean done, ready and everything settled - every environmental review cleared and every lawsuit settled.

"AEG has had an entitled site for a couple years downtown, ready to go and everything settled. So if Dean had wanted to move, he would have moved a long time ago."

And finally, the full joint statement from the Chargers and Raiders at chargers.com:

http://www.chargers.com/news/2015/02/19/joint-statement-raiders-and-chargers

An excerpt:

In particular, we respect the right of the NFLs owners to decide on all Los Angeles-related relocation issues and understand that any relocation application that is filed for Los Angeles must obtain the approval of three-fourths of the NFL,s owners.

Still blows my mind that there are now three current NFL owners that own stadium land in L.A. Remember when that was what separated Kroenke from the rest?

[The_Admiral]

The NFL would be nuts to abandon San Diego. St. Louis, you can take or leave, but San Diego doesn't seem worth missing out on.

[JayMac]

The NFL would be nuts to abandon San Diego. St. Louis, you can take or leave, but San Diego doesn't seem worth missing out on.

I agree with you on the NFL's willingness to abandon San Diego. But San Diego doesn't seem to be willing to work with the Chargers.

[Mac the Knife]

Well, it's been a busy morning here...

Do you think that a move to the NFC is inevitable for one of the teams?

I read early on in this whole thing that the Raiders were amenable to a move to the NFC if it came to that. But current language in the NFL Constitution and Bylaws would actually prohibit that, unless (i) the 49ers approved (which I suspect wouldn't care) and (ii) the Raiders were in a different division than the 49ers (but if the team's no longer based in Oakland, no one would take issue with that). I think realignment isn't a concern for anyone trying to move to Los Angeles right now, though.

This is going to be a clusterf***. I can now see why Goodell announced that no team can move to LA in 2015. We could have had potentially three teams announce their intentions to move.

Goodell made a (yet another) mistake in asking franchises not to petition for relocation for 2015. Ostensibly aimed at giving the Rams and an AFC team the chance to get their ducks in a row for a joint effort that would put two teams in Los Angeles, now he has a free-for-all on his hands.

This is going to be a clusterf***. I can now see why Goodell announced that no team can move to LA in 2015. We could have had potentially three teams announce their intentions to move.

Please NFL, let the Rams move first.

Yes, please.

And the NFL wouldn't let all three move right? Could they even stop it? If all three teams build their stadiums and get it all in a row, would there be anything to stop all three teams from moving here?

No. There's no way that happens. Though the city honestly could probably support three with no issue, the NFL'd never allow more than two in any city.

I remember hearing that too. Carson isn't flashy enough either. It's just there. The only good things about it is that there's space to build nice things, it's near two major freeways and it's kinda in the middle of the whole Los Angeles Metropolitan area.

At least we know which blimp would provide live aerial coverage. The Goodyear blimp is moored on the other side of the 405.

If Al Davis were still alive though, I could see the Fuji blimp over the stadium though... just for spite.

[Tigers6884]

Los Angeles Chargers? Doesn't quite sound right

[Gothamite]

This is going to be a clusterf***. I can now see why Goodell announced that no team can move to LA in 2015. We could have had potentially three teams announce their intentions to move.

Goodell made a (yet another) mistake in asking franchises not to petition for relocation for 2015. Ostensibly aimed at giving the Rams and an AFC team the chance to get their ducks in a row for a joint effort that would put two teams in Los Angeles, now he has a free-for-all on his hands.

Yep. He should have just faced it when the Rams first made their intentions known. Kicking the can down the road only magnified his problems.

Now teh NFL is facing three potential lame-duck seasons in 2015.

[Gothamite]

Los Angeles Chargers? Doesn't quite sound right

Yeah, that'd never work.

[Gothamite]

Still blows my mind that there are now three current NFL owners that own stadium land in L.A. Remember when that was what separated Kroenke from the rest?

Indeed.

There's still one thing he has that they don't; a nearly-shovel-ready project. He just needs a little rezoning, which by all account is certainly going to pass, either in a public vote or simply by the city council. The Rargers' new stadium will literally have to start from the ground up, including the environmental review that can drag out the process.

[TheOldRoman]

Still blows my mind that there are now three current NFL owners that own stadium land in L.A. Remember when that was what separated Kroenke from the rest?

Indeed.

There's still one thing he has that they don't; a nearly-shovel-ready project. He just needs a little rezoning, which by all account is certainly going to pass, either in a public vote or simply by the city council. The Rargers' new stadium will literally have to start from the ground up, including the environmental review that can drag out the process.

Knowing that, it seems almost certain the Rams will be in LA in 2016 while the stadium is being built. Even if there was any small chance they'd have stuck around with a new stadium in St. Louis, I think that's gone as they aren't going to want to miss out on the chance of the LA market. I wouldn't be surprised if the Rams even announced the move midseason and napalmed the team just to get a leg up on the Chargers and Raiders.

As for the Raiders, how the hell did they get money to buy a large plot of land? I thought they could barely make payroll and Davis was going to have to sell half the team to get anything done? He assuredly took out massive loans for the land, but still, if they're getting no public funding, they're going to have to come up with $900 million in total. It doesn't seem like they could do that. If the Raiders had $900 million to spend, they could probably build their own modest stadium to stay in Oakland.

[STL FANATIC]

This is getting crazy.

If the NFL is able to have any semblance of control, I now think the most likely outcome is that the Rams stay in St. Louis and the Raiders and Chargers move to LA.

From the NFL's perspective, you've got a couple of teams that have been working in their markets to get a new stadium for years—one for over a decade—but have virtually nothing on the table right now. And then you've got a team that's barely engaged in discussions for a new stadium beyond a lease-mandated process, but actually has a realistic proposal on the table in their current market anyways.

It made sense that the NFL would overlook all that when Kroenke's plan was the only viable one in LA. Now that doesn't appear to be the case.

If the St. Louis stadium plan keeps progressing, I think the NFL will fight to keep the Rams in St. Louis. The question then shifts to whether or not they can stop Kroenke. The answer has repeatedly been "probably not," but with two other teams potentially on the move the dynamic changes.

I'm also not sure I agree with you all about the NFL having screwed this up by not letting teams announce anything.

If they had let the Rams make an announcement, at least one of San Diego or Oakland ends up without a new stadium for a very long time still.

By doing what they did, they now have a very possible outcome that includes all three teams having new stadiums and being in LA. How would that not be a win for the league?

[Gothamite]

As for the Raiders, how the hell did they get money to buy a large plot of land? I thought they could barely make payroll and Davis was going to have to sell half the team to get anything done? He assuredly took out massive loans for the land, but still, if they're getting no public funding, they're going to have to come up with $900 million in total. It doesn't seem like they could do that. If the Raiders had $900 million to spend, they could probably build their own modest stadium to stay in Oakland.

Each team received $187.7 million in revenue sharing from the NFL in 2013, the last year we have data for. Even if the Raiders spent right to the salary cap of $123 million, they'd still have over $64,000,000 to spend on team expenses, salaries and the like. But the Raiders didn't spend to the cap; I'm seeing reports that they spent just under $100M last year, which means that they had nearly $90,000,000 left over just from the shared revenue. That's a good down payment on some real estate.

And that's not counting any monies that team get to keep, including their percentage of ticket revenue, stadium revenue, merchandise sold at their own outlets including the stores in LA, and everything else. So no, the Raiders aren't broke.

[STL FANATIC]

The NFL would be nuts to abandon San Diego. St. Louis, you can take or leave, but San Diego doesn't seem worth missing out on.

Why is this? Because it's on the west coast and has amazing whether? When you get to the numbers, St. Louis seems to be the more valuable market.

St. Louis is the 21st ranked American TV market, and San Diego is the 28th. St. Louis has 9 Fortune 500 companies, San Diego has 2. St. Louis has 14 Fortune 1000 companies, San Diego has 5.

[TheOldRoman]

STL - That's right. If your scenario plays out and the NFL gets stadiums built in LA and St Louis, everybody wins except the Rams (and of course fans in SD and Oakland). That might be the best for business, but if Kroenke was dead-set on moving to LA and reaping the financial benefits, there will be loads of lawsuits against the league.

[STL FANATIC]

STL - That's right. If your scenario plays out and the NFL gets stadiums built in LA and St Louis, everybody wins except the Rams (and of course fans in SD and Oakland). That might be the best for business, but if Kroenke was dead-set on moving to LA and reaping the financial benefits, there will be loads of lawsuits against the league.

Agreed. This seems set to be a mess no matter what. But the NFL's perspective might be that the mess is worth it if they get their new stadiums.

[TheOldRoman]

As for the Raiders, how the hell did they get money to buy a large plot of land? I thought they could barely make payroll and Davis was going to have to sell half the team to get anything done? He assuredly took out massive loans for the land, but still, if they're getting no public funding, they're going to have to come up with $900 million in total. It doesn't seem like they could do that. If the Raiders had $900 million to spend, they could probably build their own modest stadium to stay in Oakland.

Each team received $187.7 million in revenue sharing from the NFL in 2013, the last year we have data for. Even if the Raiders spent right to the salary cap of $123 million, they'd still have over $64,000,000 to spend on team expenses, salaries and the like. But the Raiders didn't spend to the cap; I'm seeing reports that they spent just under $100M last year, which means that they had nearly $90,000,000 left over just from the shared revenue. That's a good down payment on some real estate.

And that's not counting any monies that team get to keep, including their percentage of ticket revenue, stadium revenue, merchandise sold at their own outlets including the stores in LA, and everything else. So no, the Raiders aren't broke.

I mean, I know that none of the teams who claim to be broke actually are (other than the Coyotes). But it seemed like all indications were that Davis had essentially zero money outside of the team and, therefore, didn't have the wherewithal to get anything without selling a huge portion of the team. Also, he is incompetent. But I suppose this scenario is similar to him having to sell half the team to get anything done. The Chargers got the ball rolling with the city and pulled in the Raiders and held their hand through this. They're doing all the work so Davis can't bumble this away.

[bosrs1]

From the L.A. Times story linked above:

"The NFL has looked into buying the site at least three times. ...

The Chargers and Raiders bought the land from Starwood Capital Group."

So they whipped up this proposal in reaction to the Inglewood announcement and already bought the land?

Wait, so the Chargers and Raiders already bought the land?

[Brian in Boston]

There's still one thing he has that they don't; a nearly-shovel-ready project. He just needs a little rezoning, which by all account is certainly going to pass, either in a public vote or simply by the city council.

The entry of the Chargers/Raiders proposal into the mix virtually guarantees that the Inglewood City Council will now approve the rezoning via council vote, as opposed to waiting until June to place it on the ballot. They were already leaning that way and, now that there's a competing plan in play, they're not likely to do anything that would allow the late-comers to close the gap.

[Gothamite]

Indeed. Inglewood could have a ground-breaking within a week or two. That's got to look compelling right now.

Wait, so the Chargers and Raiders already bought the land?

That's what the article states.

But what it doesn't say is whether the purchase is contingent on anything, an intent to sell, or an actual completed sale. That we don't seem to know.