NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[The_Admiral]

I don't think there's a single indoor stadium that televises well. They all feel like tombs, even retractable-roof ones like Indianapolis.

I don't know what constitutes "football weather," other than any weather at all.

[STL FANATIC]

I don't think there's a single indoor stadium that televises well. They all feel like tombs, even retractable-roof ones like Indianapolis.

I don't know what constitutes "football weather," other than any weather at all.

Some people like to spout off about how real football is played in the elements. The snow. The rain. The wind. The cold. Etc.

I'd argue that as long as it's played on a regulation field, it's football regardless of the elements. And you could argue that and indoor, climate controlled environment is actually the most pure form of the game.

But I'll stick with it's football no matter where it's played as long as it's played by the rules. (Which means the NFL rarely plays it at all, AMIRITE?)

[Gothamite]

Well, it looks like the 23rd MLS franchise will go to Minneapolis.

http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2015/03/13/mls-expansion-minnesota-united-vikings-sacramento

And not to the Vikings, but to the NASL team, looking to build their own SSS.

Any talk of MLS in the riverfront St. Louis stadium is just that. Not going to happen.

[FiddySicks]

Does that mean Sacramento is out? If so, that's stupid.

[STL FANATIC]

For now. But Beckham's Miami team still doesn't seem super concrete if he expects a publicly built stadium. So, Sacramento may yet get that 24th spot.

[dfwabel]

For now. But Beckham's Miami team still doesn't seem super concrete if he expects a publicly built stadium. So, Sacramento may yet get that 24th spot.

So could Las Vegas, but neither applys to this thread like the already under construction Vikings stadium does.

The board doesn't need another Google/satellite shot of the concrete posts near ARCO Arena II...SleepTrain Pavilion saying "it's ready".

[The_Admiral]

I don't think there's a single indoor stadium that televises well. They all feel like tombs, even retractable-roof ones like Indianapolis.

I don't know what constitutes "football weather," other than any weather at all.

Some people like to spout off about how real football is played in the elements. The snow. The rain. The wind. The cold. Etc.

I'd argue that as long as it's played on a regulation field, it's football regardless of the elements. And you could argue that and indoor, climate controlled environment is actually the most pure form of the game.

But I'll stick with it's football no matter where it's played as long as it's played by the rules. (Which means the NFL rarely plays it at all, AMIRITE?)

For a neutral-site game, it'd be ideal to be indoors, or at least somewhere that won't have unusual conditions. Being outside on grass is preferable, but it's just football, it's not worth getting worked up over.

Now, baseball, on the other hand, different story. Baseball should always be on real grass. When the Expos moved to Washington, as much as I liked the Expos and pull for all things Quebec, I was glad to see the whole National League on grass and the execrable Stade Olympique out of the majors. I'll be happier when the Blue Jays finally lay down grass in the SkyDome and the Rays either build a new place or move and we can never think about Astroturf baseball ever again. Here's this beautiful pastoral game of summer, of renewal, of life, where authenticity is so precious that we run guys out on a rail for using drugs whose names are just random-looking letters and numbers, and we take that game and try to play it on goddamn plastic grass. What crap.

[Gothamite]

For now. But Beckham's Miami team still doesn't seem super concrete if he expects a publicly built stadium. So, Sacramento may yet get that 24th spot.

So could Las Vegas, but neither applys to this thread like the already under construction Vikings stadium does.

Vegas has already been eliminated. It's Miami or Sacramento, based solely on whether Beckham can build a stadium.

But yes, the point was that MLS will avoid putting an expansion team in an NFL stadium. So if anyone is looking to justify spending public money on the St. Louis riverfront project based on an MLS team sharing it, you can tell they're either not serious or not paying attention.

[STL FANATIC]

I'm still not sure that's entirely accurate, Goth. No question what their stadium preference is, but I'm not convinced they'd automatically eliminate a city just because they'd have to play in a brand new NFL stadium rather than a SSS.

For me, the real point, is that there's just no more slots. But that still works with your final conclusion.

[Gothamite]

MLS hasn't put a team in an NFL stadium without cross-ownership since, what, 1998? Not going to happen unless you think Kroenke wants to sell the Rapids and buy another team, or a new NFL owner comes in with $100M to spare.

And no more slots.

[STL FANATIC]

That's a valid point, but I'll bring up that the St. Louis stadium would be, as the Seattle stadium was and new Atlanta stadium is being, designed with soccer in mind.

Most of the cities the MLS cities that have NFL teams, didn't have a stadium built with that dual purpose in mind.

I still think what you're saying makes sense, I just don't see that being the single deal-breaker. But it also looks essentially certain that it doesn't matter.

[STL FANATIC]

The St. Louis stadium task force has put out a statement concerning the MLS. They continue to hold out hope. They point to Commissioner Garber's mention that the league will evaluate expansion options beyond 24 teams in the coming year.

I'm initially skeptical. Then again, the statement mentions Garber coming to town to discuss things further. So maybe there's a little something to it.

Major League Soccer confirmed on Monday afternoon that it is in “advanced discussions” with representatives from Minnesota United FC for an expansion club, and will evaluate its expansion plans beyond 24 clubs – which could include St. Louis – later this year.

Dave Peacock, the co-lead of Gov. Jay Nixon’s task force to explore a new downtown stadium that could be the new home to the St. Louis Rams, offered the following thoughts:

“It’s excellent news to hear MLS Commissioner Don Garber acknowledge the possibility of expansion beyond 24 clubs,” Peacock said. “The emphasis of our task force is to develop plans for a stadium on the North Riverfront of downtown St. Louis that could be the new home for the St. Louis Rams and a future MLS expansion club. We look forward to hosting MLS Commissioner Garber later this year to explore the possibilities and reintroduce everything St. Louis has to offer Major League Soccer.”

http://lockerdome.com/7475583080735553/7504702690568721

And here's the Garber reference:

However, on Monday, Garber stated that the league will evaluate its expansion plans.

“Over the course of 2015, we plan to evaluate potential expansion beyond 24 clubs,” he said.

http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2015/03/16/mls-confirms-advanced-discussions-minnesota-expansion-will-evaluate-going-be

[Gothamite]

Yes, MLS is willing to meet with St. Louis. But in the new stadium? Not unless they lose the Rams.

Here's the thing. MLS only plays in NFL stadiums where there is cross-ownership between the two teams (and even then it's not preferred). They haven't put an expansion team into an NFL stadium, absent those ownership considerations, since 1998.

So these are the possibilities:

1. Kronke stays in Missouri and sells his Colorado soccer franchise before buying a new St. Louis expansion franchise. Seems awfully complicated.

2. St. Louis builds the Peacock NFL stadium and an MLS stadium. Sounds pricey.

3. St. Louis loses the Rams, and attract a new NFL team owned by someone who's also able and willing to drop a couple hundred million on an MLS franchise. That's certainly possible.

Or finally:

4. St. Louis converts the Peacock plan to a 20,000-seat SSS and says goodbye forever to the NFL.

[CubsFanBudMan]

I don't hate No. 4.

Soccer is the future. ®

[STL FANATIC]

Number 4 would be ideal.

Of course, I'm still not sure I'm buying what your selling as fact, Goth. Again, what other MLS cities have had brand new football stadiums that were specifically designed for that dual purpose? Think you might be mistaking correlation for causation.

Still, there's no doubt what the preference of the MLS is. I'm just going to stop well short of saying it's a deal breaker.

[Gothamite]

Well, the Dolphins Stadium is being extensively overhauled. It could well have served as a home for Beckham's franchise, but wasn't allowed to be a consideration, not even until a more permanent plan could be devised.

You have to understand why MLS wants SSS. In part, it's about being the primary tenant and controlling revenue streams. But its also about playing in venues that are sized appropriately for its crowds and its sport.

NFL teams play eight home games, about once a week. They attract bigger crowds for each game. MLS teams play more than twice as many league games, plus competitions like the US Open Cup, including several on weeknights. They draw a smaller average crowd.

Soccer is a more intimate sport, one in which the fans are encouraged to stand, sing and cheer the entire time. Smaller stadiums create a better atmosphere for the games, which fuels attendance.

And they also look better on television than games in huge, half-full bowls. The ever-increasing television contacts are key to fueling the league's growth spurt.

Huge, sweeping 70,000 seat stadiums are good for football. They're terrible for soccer. Focused, close, 24,000 seat stadiums are good for soccer.

That's all important to understand. But you don't have to take my word for it. I know that you've picked up on how Missouri politicians are talking about St. Louis as an "NFL city", not necessarily the home of the Rams. You know how words, carefully chosen, reveal true intentions. And what did Garber say when asked about the Peacock plan and the possibility of MLS in St. Louis?

"Theres a big soccer community out there and wed love to see a soccer stadium downtown like theyre thinking about a football stadium."

Not "we could maybe want in on that", or "maybe potentially we would be interested in joining that discussion" but "we would like you to build us one too".

Garber could easily have seized on the opportunity to encourage potential owners to step up and join the effort. A few meaningless words would have brought St. Louis into the expansion race. Would have been very good for promoting competition for those few available spots, and forced Sacramento, Las Vegas and Minneapolis into sweetening their bids. But he didn't bite. At all. Not even as a bluff. Why do you think that is?

[colortv]

http://documents.latimes.com/aegs-letter-carson-mayor-jim-dear/

AEG going nuclear, what are they trying to accomplish?

[Gothamite]

Desperation is never sexy.

[colortv]

What's the point, though? They've already torpedoed Farmers and pissing off the Chargers and Raiders wouldn't seem to be an ideal way of getting them on your side.

[Gothamite]

Why does AEG need the Raiders and Chargers on their side? What they're interested in now is killing the new stadium to preserve whatever concert revenue they get from Carson and minimize traffic around Galaxy games.