Jump to content

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay


duma
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Considering it was built specifically for the college world series you can pretty much rule that idea as worse than a non-starter.

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.

Considering it was built specifically for the college world series you can pretty much rule that idea as worse than a non-starter.

I just threw that list together. I am sure there are issues with each of those sites. The point being I would expect a number of communities to bid for the Raiders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expansion isn't out of the question, and I joked about it earlier being the NFL's ultimate power play for control of the L.A. situation, but it's not happening unless Oakland, San Diego and St. Louis pay up quickly for stadiums and the Raiders, Chargers and Rams can't refuse.

London is out of the question, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Labor leaders announced Thursday that they have resolved a dispute with developers that threatened to delay construction of a proposed 80,000-seat stadium near Los Angeles that could become home for an NFL team.

Earlier this month, labor leaders became alarmed after concluding that certain jobs connected to the nearly $2 billion project backed by St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke might be awarded to non-unionized workers. Labor trouble could make a stadium project less appealing to the NFL and its owners, who ultimately decide on possible team moves.

Continue reading: http://pro32.ap.org/article/labor-developers-reach-deal-proposed-inglewood-stadium

Link to comment
Share on other sites

San Diego city, county fighting to keep Chargers

AN DIEGO – The county and city of San Diego are joining forces in a bid to keep its NFL franchise.

Mayor Kevin Faulconer and county supervisors said Thursday that the two governments would spend up to $500,000 on consultants, attorneys, bankers and other experts. Voters will eventually decide whether to back a new stadium for the San Diego Chargers.

The mayor’s stadium task force is expected to announce a financing plan by May 20 in San Diego’s Mission Valley area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, something I was thinking of.

St. Louis has their stadium proposal. Was this proposal just part of their contract negotiations with the Rams, or is this their stadium proposal for the NFL and any team that may want to play in St. Louis, whether it's the Rams staying or a team relocating or league expansion? The CVC and the Rams obviously had their back-and-forths....was this proposal just a continuation of that?

If the Rams are hoping for an expansion team, then yeah they'll need a new stadium built.

But, if it's just a team relocation, can St. Louis not talk a team (let's assume the Raiders) into signing a 10-year lease with the current stadium and/or lengthier contract on staying in town? This would give the Raiders a younger building to play in, as well as giving the city (and maybe the team as well) ample time to raise funds and secure land and put together a much more viable and realistic stadium/land development plan than their current proposal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has nothing to do with the previous negotiations - those broke down and the Rams were released from their lease.

It's almost like St. Louis is trying to lure an expansion franchise, if only one from a few blocks away.

As for the Raiders, it's always possible but seems unlikely that they would move to St. Louis without a new stadium deal in place. Move into the Dome for one year while construction on the new place is being finished? Maybe. Move into an outdated facility in the hopes that a new one is built? Never.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always said that the Chargers would stay in San Diego with the Rams & Raiders returning to LA. I still believe it will happen. $hit just needs to be worked out. Raiders to St. Louis? Nah.

If the Chargers weren't being so obstructionist I might agree with you. But I can see no reason for them pooh-poohing every development by the city and preemptively dismissing the city's work (before they've even released anything) other than the Chargers having already decided to bail. This will be their final year in San Diego. I'll gladly eat crow if not, but I just don't see them staying long term based on their current attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the thing, though: Both the Rams and Chargers want to be the lead dog in L.A. The scenario of them together seemed less likely once the Chargers' plan was unveiled.

The Raiders would likely shack up with whoever would have them, although it doesn't seem like the Rams want company.

I can't see the Raiders going it alone at this point, in St. Louis, San Antonio or elsewhere. They seem destined to be a second team in any market for the extent of current ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's their current attitude that's puzzling though. They've been at this for over a decade, but they've also never threatened to move to LA before, despite claiming that it was essential to their financial survival. You'd think that, if LA was really that essential to them, they'd have made a move by now. They couldn't have thought the second largest media market in the US was going to be without a NFL team forever. So given all that? I have no idea what they truly want. Only that they're behind Stan and the Rams as far as making a move for LA goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seemed that the Chargers were content to let the game of musical chairs play out ... until there were three teams left and two chairs, anyway.

The threats weren't real until Kroenke's announcement that he added 240 or so acres to his 60. They were either flawed, hollow or not supported by the NFL in any way other than the leverage they provided to get other teams new stadiums (i.e. Farmers Field and the Vikings).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the thing, though: Both the Rams and Chargers want to be the lead dog in L.A. The scenario of them together seemed less likely once the Chargers' plan was unveiled.

The Raiders would likely shack up with whoever would have them, although it doesn't seem like the Rams want company.

I can't see the Raiders going it alone at this point, in St. Louis, San Antonio or elsewhere. They seem destined to be a second team in any market for the extent of current ownership.

Actually that seems to have changed. They went out of their way to point out the new stadium can host 2 NFL teams in Inglewood. And frankly I don't think the Chargers care if they're the lead dog in Carson or the second team in Inglewood. They just want to ensure that they're one of the two teams to minimize their losses of their precious 25% LA based fans/businesses.

Nevermind they'll lose almost all of the 75% of their existing fan base. But that doesn't seem to be concerning them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as Khan said when he first got here, make the product better. Make the game day experience better. Don't scare people to go with blackouts. Make them want to go no matter what the team's record is. He spent his cash and he did that. 13th in the league in attendance and up 10 to 15 spots in the revenue. if you think the Jags are going somewhere, you are misinformed on the situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moving anyone (Jags, Raiders) into St. Louis after the Rams leave just seems ridiculous to me.

"Oh hey, you've spent twenty-something years cheering for this team? Well they're gone. Root for this other (worse) team instead." For a city that's already having attendance issues? It's probably not the best move to make. I mean if you're going to do that you might as well just have Mark Davis and Stan Kroenke swap franchises and have Stan move the Raiders to Inglewood while Mark keeps the Rams in St. Louis. It's never going to happen, but you might as well do that if you're just going to force the Raiders into St. Louis once the Rams leave anyway.

Obviously this could play out any number of ways, but I'd prefer to see the Raiders in LA or in San Antonio. The Raiders sharing a stadi-mall in the suburbs with the 49ers just seems wrong, and moving the Raiders into Cardinals Nation more so.

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.