NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[STL FANATIC]

The will be interesting to follow. It would fit Kroenke's persona totally to amp things up and break-ground to re-gain his advantage. But it's also something of a billion dollar risk if something doesn't work out.

This is going to be fun. Or something.

[Pabig]

I'd love to see two or three LA teams. And if the Chargers / Raiders deal would happen I would actually be in favor of having them both stay in the AFC West. Would make for a great rivalry and I don't see any argument that goes against that.

[Sport]

It would be really weird for two division rivals to share a facility. The Jets and Giants have shared a stadium since the 80's, but they're in separate conferences and only play in the preseason and once every four years. The Chargers and Raiders would play in their home stadium 9 times a year.

I guess the Lakers and Clippers manage to make it work.

[Mac the Knife]

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.

San Diego's the 18th largest city in North America. St. Louis isn't in the top 100. Bakersfield and Omaha have bigger populations than St. Louis.

I love St. Louis as a city, but yeah... sure. The NFL's going to prefer St. Louis over San Diego.

[buckeye]

Can we just fast forward and just settle this so we can find out who's going where and the speculation can be done with...

[Sport]

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.

San Diego's the 18th largest city in North America. St. Louis isn't in the top 100. Bakersfield and Omaha have bigger populations than St. Louis.

I love St. Louis as a city, but yeah... sure. The NFL's going to prefer St. Louis over San Diego.

Bakersfield and Omaha may have larger populations, but St. Louis' metro is 2.8 million people which is only slightly less than San Diego's metro population. Bakersfield's metro is under a million, so is Omaha's. Actual inner city populations are meaningless in these discussions because the fanbase is drawn from entire regions, especially in football where a lot of fans commute for the day long event.

City population numbers are more or less arbitrarily drawn and how a city defnies it's residents versus its suburbs differs from city to city.

For example: I lived in a house nowhere near downtown Cincinnati, but had a Cincinnati address. I also lived in a house the same distance from downtown Columbus, and did not have a Columbus address.

[B-Rich]

San Diego's the 18th largest city in North America. St. Louis isn't in the top 100. Bakersfield and Omaha have bigger populations than St. Louis.

I love St. Louis as a city, but yeah... sure. The NFL's going to prefer St. Louis over San Diego.

City size doesn't mean diddly squat. That only deals with population within the strict political boundaries (city limits) of a given city, and do not include bordering cities or suburbs in adjoining counties (or in St. Louis' case, right across the river in another STATE) counted in their "city limit" population.

You need to look at the metro areas; known in census data as MSAs (metropolitan statistical area). On that note, the two are similar: the San Diego-Carlsbad CA MSA is 17th, while the St. Louis, MO-IL MSA is 19th.

I think the better comparison is that the Chargers have been in San Diego for all but their first year of existence-- for 54 years. St. Louis, meanwhile, had a team, lost it because of stadium issues, got a relocated team, and after about 20 years may yet lose this one over a stadium issue.

[Mac the Knife]

Yes, but the 75-mile franchise radius held by the San Diego Chargers actually overlaps with what would be the Los Angeles territory, so again, comparing San Diego and St. Louis is going to come out in favor of San Diego any way you slice it.

In fact, I just realized something: the Chargers could move as far up the coast as Lake Forest or Mission Viejo without so much as getting NFL approval, as that area falls within the Chargers current 75-mile territorial radius.

[STL FANATIC]

^^ What they said about city vs. metro. The Metro areas are largely the same size. And again, St. Louis has a stronger business community. I don't think that's unimportant.

[TheOldRoman]

I'd love to see two or three LA teams. And if the Chargers / Raiders deal would happen I would actually be in favor of having them both stay in the AFC West. Would make for a great rivalry and I don't see any argument that goes against that.

It would essentially be cannibalizing a franchise by offering the same exact product to the market, just with different uniforms. The Jets and Giants had histories in the region and already established fanbases when they started sharing stadiums. Just as important, they're in different conferences and play different teams.

Why would anybody in LA become a fan of the Raiders or become a fan of the Chargers? What is the difference between the teams, other than some history which happened in other cities? They'd both offer the same exact schedule, they wouldn't cater to different regions or anything. There would be no northside/southside thing, no blue bloods vs. scrappy upstarts. Nothing distinguishing the teams or dictating who fans should root for. Clippers fans (before 2009) became so because they were contrarians who disliked the Lakers' dynasty and celebrity support. At least there was a conceivable reason for fans to choose one team over the other. The Raiders would draw Raiders fans, but most of the region would probably just tacitly root for both teams and not particularly care about either unless it was really good. It wouldn't be killing two birds with one stone, it would be using two stones to kill one bird.

[STL FANATIC]

Yes, but the 75-mile franchise radius held by the San Diego Chargers actually overlaps with what would be the Los Angeles territory, so again, comparing San Diego and St. Louis is going to come out in favor of San Diego any way you slice it.

Considering that LA is going to be taken over by some team, how is this a positive for San Diego? As soon as that LA territory is filled, the "LA-effect" of the San Diego market becomes moot.

In fact, that furthers St. Louis' case. You don't lose the bay area if Oakland moves, and you don't lose much of So Cal if San Diego moves to LA. But you don't lose St. Louis if you lose St. Louis.

And let me once again clarify that no, St. Louis isn't a big enough market for the NFL to do back flips for, and to Rams80's certain response, yes, the area will still find teams to root for in the midwest. But if "they'll still watch somebody" was such an important factor, then it wouldn't matter if the NFL went back to LA or not.

All I'm saying is that of the possible outcomes here, the best TV outcome for the NFL is the Chargers and Raiders to LA and the Rams in St. Louis. And that looks to be the best possible stadium outcome too.

It's not like the NFL will fall to rubble if they don't keep St. Louis. I don't think they'd sweat it at all. But if they could pick their most desired outcome, that one seems to check the most boxes, no?

[STL FANATIC]

I'd love to see two or three LA teams. And if the Chargers / Raiders deal would happen I would actually be in favor of having them both stay in the AFC West. Would make for a great rivalry and I don't see any argument that goes against that.

It would essentially be cannibalizing a franchise by offering the same exact product to the market, just with different uniforms. The Jets and Giants had histories in the region and already established fanbases when they started sharing stadiums. Just as important, they're in different conferences and play different teams.

Why would anybody in LA become a fan of the Raiders or become a fan of the Chargers? What is the difference between the teams, other than some history which happened in other cities? They'd both offer the same exact schedule, they wouldn't cater to different regions or anything. The Raiders would draw Raiders fan, but most of the region would probably just tacitly root for both teams and not particularly care about either unless it was really good. It wouldn't be killing two birds with one stone, it would be using two stones to kill one bird.

I don't really agree with this. I think they'd both do just fine, and they'd be boosted by the fact that both teams already have fans in the area. I think the only reasonable concern about this was brought up a couple days ago, and that's television. But I'm sure they could work that out, too.

That said, the simplest solution is just to swap the Rams with one of those teams. I mean as it concerns their place in a division, but physically swapping them is a real possibility too, lol.

[STL FANATIC]

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

I wasn't sure whether to give him credit or not until I just saw on Markazi's Twitter feed a mention of the Chargers working with Goldman-Sachs.

I think Strickland nailed this. He never had the FULL scoop mind you, nor did he try to or pretend to. But his info seems to have been good.

[Mac the Knife]

All I'm saying is that of the possible outcomes here, the best TV outcome for the NFL is the Chargers and Raiders to LA and the Rams in St. Louis. And that looks to be the best possible stadium outcome too.

If St. Louis had an owner that was interested in staying in the market, then absolutely, the Chargers and Raiders going to Los Angeles would likely be the preferable outcome for everyone concerned. But they don't.

If it comes down to a tie on all angles, it'll be the Rams and Chargers moving with the Raiders left out. If owners take their relocation policy seriously, it'll be the Raiders and Chargers, with the Rams left out. If this Chargers/Raiders deal falls through or if they can't stick shovels in the ground immediately, it'll be the Rams and whomever can massage 24 votes out of 32.

[STL FANATIC]

That all sounds right. We'll see how much influence the league is able to exert, or perhaps more accurately how willing to be influenced the involved owners are.

If Kroenke sticks a shovel in the ground, the Rams are probably gone, but we could see one hell of a fight come afterwards.

[Rockstar Matt]

That all sounds right. We'll see how much influence the league is able to exert, or perhaps more accurately how willing to be influenced the involved owners are.

If Kroenke sticks a shovel in the ground, the Rams are probably gone, but we could see one hell of a fight come afterwards.

I truly love your opitimism. I'm a optimistic guy myself and it's admirable to see even in the face of certain defeat, you're still holding out hope that the Rams stick in St. Louis.

Having said that, the Rams are moving to Los Angeles. They're gone. There's no question in my mind that the Rams would have already applied for relocation for this upcoming season had Goodell not poo-pooed that.

When it comes to either the Chargers or the Raiders, it seems most likely that the Raiders will be the second tenant in Inglewood and the NFL will help the Chargers build a new stadium in San Diego.

[STL FANATIC]

I wouldn't say I'm optimistic. I just think it's possible they stay, and increasingly more possible with each development.

I also agree they want to be in LA. But right now there are multiple ways it could shake out.

[Mac the Knife]

I wouldn't say I'm optimistic. I just think it's possible they stay, and increasingly more possible with each development.

I also agree they want to be in LA. But right now there are multiple ways it could shake out.

Oh, anything's possible in how this all plays out. But if you're thinking the end result is going to be that the Rams stay in St. Louis with Kroenke (sp?) as its owner? Nuh-huh.

Two teams will end up getting the nod to go to L.A. The third will have to either move somewhere else (San Antonio, San Diego, Oakland, St. Louis), and/or be sold to someone not currently in the mix, so as not to permanently poison the affected market.

[STL FANATIC]

That itself is sort of this other weird thing floating there. I'm not sure that you're right that there's no way Kroenke winds up still owning the Rams in St. Louis. But you're absolutely right to be concerned about how bizarre that would be and whether it would poison the market. But let's not forget that Tom Benson nearly moved the Saints and now has a statue outside of the Superdome.

I realize he didn't get to the point of buying land and releasing a stadium plan, but he still had seemingly poisoned the well. The New Orleans Mayor actually said they wanted to keep the team but not the owner even suggesting they should get "the Cleveland plan." Point being that these things have a way of blowing over. I think it'd be awkward, but I don't think it'd be impossible for Kroenke to go on owning the Rams.

Part of me wants to think that the most likely outcome is actually the Rams and Chargers sharing Kroenke's Inglewood stadium and the Raiders indeed moving to St. Louis where a stadium plan would be ready to go.

That would still kinda check the boxes I've been talking about and solves the worry you have. But the weird thing there is whether or not Spanos and Kroenke can work together like that. Is it telling that the Chargers didn't reach out to Kroenke to be part of his plan or a "guaranteed" tenant of his to have both an LA option and more immediate leverage in San Diego? He instead looped the Raiders in on a plan he had developed himself.

There's so many parts to this. It really is going to be crazy. Every logical outcome still has a fatal flaw. Something will give at some point. Gotta think we'll have a clearer answer by the start of the season. And we'll have something totally official within 12 months I would think.

[Gothamite]

I think you're right about Spanos bringing in the Raiders, but this seems a pretty clear reaction to Kronke buying the Hollywood Park land. That was already in motion, so the only way he could avoid being a tenant was to try to get something started apart from the Rams.

He was playing catch-up to secure some of the stadium goodies for himself rather than renting. I get that.