Jump to content

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay


duma
 Share

Recommended Posts

Looks like a glass roof open on the sides. Have to read the details.

It's not glass. It's ETFE. http://www.birdair.com/tensile-architecture/membrane/etfe

Looks like a glass roof open on the sides. Have to read the details.

That sucks. Even if it's the least sucky of the covered stadiums, it still sucks and seems unnecessary.

It would be great if Skydome or any of the stadiums that really need roofs could use that stuff, but I guess it's not good at trapping heat (or blocking cold).

The material is going to be used for the new Vikings Stadium and is already used in Munich at Allianz Arena. While not a dome, Munich does get snow and snow removal is still done the traditional way.

Munich_zpsinzudglz.jpg

The following is the manufacturer talking to a Minneapolis TV station about the material and the reporter punctured a panel for a previous story with his dress shoes while jumping on a sample panel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NFL owner's meetings today, and there is a a ton to talk about:

Giants owner John Mara expects 'one or two' L.A. teams in 2016

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/giants-owner-john-mara-expects--one-or-two--l-a--teams-in-2016-112945962.html

It's important because the general consensus around these owners meetings is that the NFL will be back in Los Angeles one way or another as soon as 2016.

New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, one of the owners who serves on the Los Angeles relocation committee, made it clear where he stands on the matter.

"I really believe within the next year, we'll have two teams in this [L.A.] market," Kraft said. "I think there are good plans. We have a little committee that's working with the different owners and we have some real good options. Now we'll see what happens in the end game."

Asked Monday what would happen to Los Angeles if Oakland, San Diego and St. Louis got deals done in their home markets, Kraft made it clear he doesn't believe that's going to happen and that at least one team would be in Los Angeles in 2016.

But Kraft also wanted it known that due diligence will be given to the markets that do put a real plan together.

"I think we have to be very careful and responsible to different markets who really step up and do what they want to do," Kraft said. "And if they do, I think we have a responsibility to make sure there's a team in that market."

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12546579/league-addresses-los-angeles-stadium-relocation-details-owners

This much is clear: The race is now on.

The NFL's dilemma is that the most advanced and attractive project is being run by the Rams, who are the team least qualified to move by the letter of the league's relocation criteria. Indeed, Kroenke's $1.86 billion football palace, which would anchor the larger 298-acre development, is shovel-ready and provides what the league long believed impossible: an L.A. solution driven by a single team owner. The flip side is that the Chargers and Raiders are far more capable of demonstrating the failures of their existing markets.

And that brings us to the other layer of this: the status of St. Louis, Oakland and San Diego. According to a league source, the NFL plans to visit all three cities in April as part of market assessments being done on each city (the owners will get an update on those Monday, as well). As things are now, the league is measuring each on how aggressive and specific they've been in their efforts to retain a team.

St. Louis, as the NFL sees it, has been both aggressive and specific. San Diego has been specific but not aggressive. Oakland has been neither. But all three cities have been more active as the tenor of the NFL's effort to return to L.A. has changed.

There is one condition that hovers over all of this: In order to protect the Chargers, the league prefers, at least in the short term, to look at having two teams total -- rather than three -- in Southern California. That means there will either be two teams in Los Angeles -- one being the Chargers -- or one in L.A., with the Chargers staying put in San Diego.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000480760/article/los-angeles-scenarios-coming-into-focus-at-nfl-annual-meeting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SI's Peter King, speaking on the Dan Patrick Show this morning, also expressed the likelihood that it will be the Rams and Chargers in SoCal with Oakland eventually moving into a new St. Louis stadium at some point.

So if that gains steam, it brings up a new question: would the Raiders — one of the league's most storied franchises — keep their identity? It would seem sacrilegious for the league to lose the Raiders brand, but it also doesn't seem to fit in a market like St. Louis, on several levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SI's Peter King, speaking on the Dan Patrick Show this morning, also expressed the likelihood that it will be the Rams and Chargers in SoCal with Oakland eventually moving into a new St. Louis stadium at some point.

So if that gains steam, it brings up a new question: would the Raiders — one of the league's most storied franchises — keep their identity? It would seem sacrilegious for the league to lose the Raiders brand, but it also doesn't seem to fit in a market like St. Louis, on several levels.

This would be a nice, tidy, preferable situation, in my opinion. An AFC and NFC team in L.A., and the third party moving to a location that could remain in the AFC/NFC West.

I think the Raiders identity would be retired by the NFL if they moved to St. Louis or somewhere outside of the Southwest. The Raiders are one of the region's most popular teams, and it's a team that is very popular with the massive Hispanic population of the area. The Raiders image and brand would be very out of place in St. Louis, whereas it wouldn't be as unfitting if they were moving to San Antonio or L.A. (taking into account the team's history in L.A., of course). Perhaps they could keep the silver and black colors in their rebrand and renaming, as an homage and a sort of streamline continuation of the franchise from one time period to another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really feel like this whole Raiders to St. Louis talk is easily the worst thing that could happen. The Rams are going to leave St. Louis only to be replaced with ANOTHER long time California team? How stupid.

Best solution is Rams and Raiders to LA, Chargers with a new park in San Diego. St Louis can either try for an expansion team or, even better, they can just kick rocks. They've lost TWO teams now (assuming the Rams do end up moving) and San Diego is a better market for pro football than St. Louis anyway.

Go away, Missouri.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not terribly comfortable with calling out the markets. But I agree that your scenario is certainly possible.

Would hate to see the Oakland fans lose their team again, though. Of all three teams in play, that's the one I most hope stays put.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not terribly comfortable with calling out the markets. But I agree that your scenario is certainly possible.

Would hate to see the Oakland fans lose their team again, though. Of all three teams in play, that's the one I most hope stays put.

Have the opposite opinion. Of all 3 fanbases, Oakland support their team the worst have have pretty consistently since they came back. The Raiders weren't entirely welcome back in the Bay Area, and they'll be the team least missed by the market as a whole if they left minus the rabid Black Hole fans. Plus while they have a small fan base, they have the fan base that is most willing to still be fans when they leave which benefits the league as a whole. Rams fans won't be following the team when the Rams move to LA. And San Diego fans by and large won't follow the team north to LA. Raiders fans did and will follow the team to LA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd get a depressing kick out of the Raiders ending up in St. Louis.

St. Louis has suffered through the NFL's 2nd worst franchise for the past decade. They appear to be on the brink of playoff contention at least. Just as that's happening, the NFL will replace them with the worst team in the NFL, and one that isn't on the brink of much.

Then you remember the Cardinals called St. Louis home for almost 30 years, and you shake your head.

The "best" part about this scenario is that St. Louis will be made out to be "fortunate" for keeping NFL football despite the fact that they'll be stuck with a $400-500 million bill and a miserable franchise.

The NFL, man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the brand stuff, I think that's all extremely overblown. Sports brands are largely based on location and people. The brand would evolve to take on the qualities and characteristics of the St. Louis fan base. And there'd probably be some St. Louis fans who would make an effort to embrace the existing parts of the current brand (dressing up at games more than anything).

But it's not like oil and water where the Raiders brand can't change and therefore it can't possibly fit a market. That's not how it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really feel like this whole Raiders to St. Louis talk is easily the worst thing that could happen. The Rams are going to leave St. Louis only to be replaced with ANOTHER long time California team? How stupid.

Best solution is Rams and Raiders to LA, Chargers with a new park in San Diego. St Louis can either try for an expansion team or, even better, they can just kick rocks. They've lost TWO teams now (assuming the Rams do end up moving) and San Diego is a better market for pro football than St. Louis anyway.

Go away, Missouri.

You're mean. :(

I won't re-hash the stuff about why St. Louis is underrated as a football market and why losing two teams isn't a fair gauge. (I'll just say it matter of factly in passing so you can't argue with it ;))

But I will say that the desired scenario coming out of the league meetings makes logistical sense. That scenario being 2 teams in Southern California, not 3.

It's not that Southern California can't support 3 teams, but going from 1 to 3 over night would be a dramatic shift. And while Spanos desire to stay in San Diego and protect the LA market is absurd, it is fair to give a committed owner the benefit of not throwing 2 teams into an area he's largely drawn from over night.

It's from that stand point that it makes sense for the Chargers to be in Southern California and either the Rams or the Raiders to join them. The other goes somewhere else, and stadium in Oakland still seems much less likely than one in St. Louis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They said in the short-term. Long term, the NFL wants two teams in LA. I don't think there's any doubt now that will happen.

As I've said before, the Chargers will be making a huge mistake by moving to LA especially if they are the second team. They will never have the same support in LA as they would in San Diego.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without getting into the details of the markets, all that really matters is the stadium. Is there any actual effort to build a stadium (or massively renovate the Alamodome) in San Antonio?

I know there's been this little dance going on between the Raiders and San Antonio, but I don't see them bypassing a new stadium—be it in Oakland, LA, or St. Louis—for a moderately refurbished Alamodome. The plans in San Antonio will need to be bigger and more long-term.

Maybe they are. Just haven't heard or seen much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not counting California cities, San Antonio is the only other vacant city that would keep that Raiders feel. IMO, anyway.

Yep. The Raiders have a huge Hispanic fanbase, and they have that "renegade franchise" aura. Both of which would fit San Antonio (large Hispanic population and being the third NFL team in Texas).

Rams beat writer for the Post-Dispatch Jim Thomas says that Mark Davis was asked a question about the rumors. He said, "We're not moving to St. Louis."

Then a few minutes later he was asked the same question and said, "We'll listen to anybody."

LOL.

http://twitter.com/jthom1

Mark needs to stop taking questions while high on cough syrup.

The "best" part about this scenario is that St. Louis will be made out to be "fortunate" for keeping NFL football despite the fact that they'll be stuck with a $400-500 million bill and a miserable franchise.

The NFL, man.

The solution, then, should be to tell the NFL to piss off and not spend all that money on a stadium. In the end what would St. Louis lose? Its status as a "NFL city"? Somehow I think they'll survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not counting California cities, San Antonio is the only other vacant city that would keep that Raiders feel. IMO, anyway.

Yep. The Raiders have a huge Hispanic fanbase, and they have that "renegade franchise" aura. Both of which would fit San Antonio (large Hispanic population and being the third NFL team in Texas).

I like it that the Spurs are silver and black as well. It helps my personal perception that the Raiders fit.

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.