Jump to content

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay


duma
 Share

Recommended Posts

However, that may no longer be the case. Sun Media's John Kryk spoke to Terry Pegula Tuesday at the NFL's annual meetings in Arizona, and Pegula told him not only that he wouldn't try and block a Toronto NFL team (under the right circumstances), but also that the NFL asked him specifically about that when he was approved as an owner:

“I don’t think I would have a problem with it if they could support the team,” Pegula said after Tuesday morning’s sessions on Day 2 of the league’s annual meeting, at the Arizona Biltmore resort.

“It’s a big enough market. I don’t know how that works with the CFL, though.”

Really? Pegula does not possess a mindset of, ‘Hey, I’ve just paid all this money for the Bills, so the Toronto market’s out?’”

“No, no,” he said. “And I believe I was asked that question when I was approved as an owner, and it was an affirmative answer to the league. I said I would support it if Toronto had a franchise … There are a lot of people there.”

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/cfl-55-yard-line/bills--owner-terry-pegula-says-he-s-not-opposed-to-another-nfl-team-in-toronto-233706516.html;_ylt=A0SO8yuJchNV2EcARUVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzdjFiaWJpBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDU1dJTUMwXzEEc2VjA3Nj

Hm so Toronto is at least on the NFL's radar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Goodell's news conference, which was following Pegula's comments, he said, "It was asked during the process. He doesnt see that as an issue for him. His focus is on Buffalo and creating a solution long term with a franchise that represents that region. Hes incredibly focused on that and not Toronto. Torontos an important market but all of Canada is and Mexico.",

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've been reading about the owner's meetings, as long as St. Louis puts together a viable stadium plan it would be extremely different for Kroenke to move the team with the NFL's bylaws.

You mean "guidelines".

And the NFL's executive overseeing the relocation just said exactly the opposite of what you've been reading.

While the NFLs market assessments of potential and current markets look at fan interest and funding streams, (NFL senior vice president Eric) Grubman cautioned that a large and enthusiastic fan base and public funding for new stadiums are not the only considerations the league will take in considering whether projects in Los Angeles or home markets make sense.

"Your supposition is that its just public money that turns the key in the lock that opens the door that makes the market viable," Grubman said. "Thats not all there is. Lets put the pieces together. You have to have a stadium and a financing plan wherever that money comes from, public, private or a combination of the two. You have to have a market assessment that suggests that the market can and will be healthy for the long term so that stadium plan is supported.

"And if you do that then youve demonstrated viability against relocation guidelines, but it still goes to a vote. But the reason I make that distinction is that I could see a scenario where a financing plan is assembled and land is assembled and an entitlement is assembled but the market assessment is dim. And in that scenario, I dont know that the owners would necessarily feel compelled to keep the team there. I could see a scenario where the market assessment is terrific and the land is assembled and the financing plan is not quite done and the owners may say, too late let em go. Or they may say, lets give them a little bit more time. Thats up to the owners."

Emphasis mine, natch. Source here: http://m.ocregister.com/articles/nfl-655530-stadium-grubman.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's interesting here is that the NFL has commissioned market studies of Oakland, San Diego and St. Louis, the same as they would for expansion franchises. Those cities have to justify any patience they're asking for.

And here is the text of the one I received:

"Dear Oakland Raiders Fan:

As you know, the Raiders organization has conducted several studies the past four years in an effort to understand potential support for a new stadium. The National Football League (NFL) is now involved in the process to resolve the Raiders lingering stadium issues so that the franchise can provide an enhanced game day experience for fans and increase its long-term viability in Oakland.

O.co Coliseum, in its 50th year of operations, has served as the home of the Raiders for 37 years, but has undergone minimal capital improvements since the team returned to Oakland in 1995 and has since become one of the oldest and most outdated facilities in the NFL. The NFL and each of its franchises are putting an increased emphasis on enhancing the in-stadium experience for its fans and the corporate community.

Conventions, Sports & Leisure International, a sports facility planning and advisory firm located in Plano, Texas, has been retained by the NFL to conduct a market feasibility study to assess interest in seating options in a new stadium in the Oakland area. As part of the study efforts, your participation in an online survey is very important to us so that informed decisions can be made regarding a potential new stadium."

*Keep in mind that Conventions, Sports, and Leisure International is a partnership between the Cowboys and Yankees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, although despite it being interesting I'm not sure how relevant that really is. It's a separate company that the teams both own but don't necessarily control; I've learned that dealing with the people who run Yankee Stadium.

Conflict of Interest will be present if Legends wins a contract to be the concessionaire of record since the executive team is also that of CS&L.

That's why Global Spectrum avoids conducting feasibility studies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really quick, simple thought.

We hear the NFL only wants two teams in Southern California, in the short term at least.

We also keep hearing that they want two teams in LA, from Kraft no less. Who also said he prefers those two teams to be in LA simultaneously with little to no wait time for the 2nd team.

Doesn't that pretty much mean the writings on the wall for San Diego?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Goodell's news conference, which was following Pegula's comments, he said, "It was asked during the process. He doesnt see that as an issue for him. His focus is on Buffalo and creating a solution long term with a franchise that represents that region. Hes incredibly focused on that and not Toronto. Torontos an important market but all of Canada is and Mexico.",

You know, this is going to sound like a totally off-the-wall idea, and I know it's not one being considered even in passing by the powers that be in the NFL, but there's one idea that if you think about it actually makes at least a modicum of sense: expansion.

Imagine: the NFL goes to its television partners (CBS, NBC, Fox, etc.) and says, "We want to renegotiate our television deals, but based on our having franchises not in 30 markets as we do now, but 33 - adding two teams in Los Angeles, one in Toronto, and one in London. You'll have significantly greater ratings in the #2 market in the United States thanks to the ability to broadcast the road game of an L.A. team in 16 weeks of the 17-week regular season, plus increased ratings in Canadian border cities and both Fox and CBS can air doubleheaders every week - one airing a London game at 9 am followed by a 1 pm game, the other going at 1 and 4 pm each week. The cost to the networks would simply be whatever amount it would take to even out the per-team revenue (slicing the TV revenue pie into 36 slices instead of 32) over the remainder of the current deals.

The NFL then could pull a Cleveland Browns, allowing two teams to immediately relocate to Los Angeles and promise that if new stadia are built in 3 years time they can have their franchises resurrected. Two years later the London and Toronto teams make their debut, followed the year later by the reborn St. Louis/Oakland/San Diego teams.

By doing this, the NFL would provide its television partners with more product at a cost that's commensurate with what they've already agreed to, resolve their Los Angeles situation, get new stadia in at least two of the markets where its currently an issue, and gain an international footprint, all the while not permanently losing its presence in any of its existing markets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really quick, simple thought.

We hear the NFL only wants two teams in Southern California, in the short term at least.

We also keep hearing that they want two teams in LA, from Kraft no less. Who also said he prefers those two teams to be in LA simultaneously with little to no wait time for the 2nd team.

Doesn't that pretty much mean the writings on the wall for San Diego?

Seems like the writing in on the wall for all 3 cities. The prevailing wisdom leaking out of Phoenix is that Rams and Chargers will end up in LA, and the Raiders will end up in St. Louis to off set the loss of their team since that's the only city of the 3 offering any kind of tangible public subsidy. Barring that you can expect the Raiders in San Antonio for the same reason, public money. Oakland will never be providing that so they'll end up losing the Raiders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really quick, simple thought.

We hear the NFL only wants two teams in Southern California, in the short term at least.

We also keep hearing that they want two teams in LA, from Kraft no less. Who also said he prefers those two teams to be in LA simultaneously with little to no wait time for the 2nd team.

Doesn't that pretty much mean the writings on the wall for San Diego?

Seems like the writing in on the wall for all 3 cities. The prevailing wisdom leaking out of Phoenix is that Rams and Chargers will end up in LA, and the Raiders will end up in St. Louis to off set the loss of their team since that's the only city of the 3 offering any kind of tangible public subsidy. Barring that you can expect the Raiders in San Antonio for the same reason, public money. Oakland will never be providing that so they'll end up losing the Raiders.

My money is on the Chargers and Rams moving to L.A. as well. I am not so sure if the Raiders would end up in St. Louis? I'd love for them to stay in the Bay Area either in Easy Bay or sharing Levi's Stadium with the Niners, but if that doesn't work out I could see him putting up to the highest bidder. Pretty much as you stated anyone willing to give him a FREE publicly paid for stadium. And, it wouldn't surprise me to see a number of communities bid for them because how often will NFL franchises come up in the future?

Portland?

Las Vegas?

San Antonio?

St. Louis?

Chicago?

Toronto?

Birmingham?

Omaha?

It will be interested to watch the dominos fall once they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really quick, simple thought.

We hear the NFL only wants two teams in Southern California, in the short term at least.

We also keep hearing that they want two teams in LA, from Kraft no less. Who also said he prefers those two teams to be in LA simultaneously with little to no wait time for the 2nd team.

Doesn't that pretty much mean the writings on the wall for San Diego?

Seems like the writing in on the wall for all 3 cities. The prevailing wisdom leaking out of Phoenix is that Rams and Chargers will end up in LA, and the Raiders will end up in St. Louis to off set the loss of their team since that's the only city of the 3 offering any kind of tangible public subsidy. Barring that you can expect the Raiders in San Antonio for the same reason, public money. Oakland will never be providing that so they'll end up losing the Raiders.

My money is on the Chargers and Rams moving to L.A. as well. I am not so sure if the Raiders would end up in St. Louis? I'd love for them to stay in the Bay Area either in Easy Bay or sharing Levi's Stadium with the Niners, but if that doesn't work out I could see him putting up to the highest bidder. Pretty much as you stated anyone willing to give him a FREE publicly paid for stadium. And, it wouldn't surprise me to see a number of communities bid for them because how often will NFL franchises come up in the future?

Portland?

Las Vegas?

San Antonio?

St. Louis?

Chicago?

Toronto?

Birmingham?

Omaha?

It will be interested to watch the dominos fall once they do.

Birmingham cannot even approve $700K to fix up Leigon Field. That city has had the idea of a domed stadium for 20 years and not a shovel in the ground. Plus, their tax rate is regressive as a state (all groceries are fully taxed), which makes the residents even poorer.

Omaha isn't going to retrofit TD Ameritrade Park for the NFL.

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.