Jump to content

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay


duma
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't think it would be all that hard to demonstrate that they're losing money, especially with the salary floor. They just need to borrow some accountants from Paramount Pictures.

They would, however, remain on the hook for something like $50M in rent to the city. Maybe they could negotiate that down to save the city legal fees, maybe not.

That's why I said I put the Jags way, way behind the Rams and Chargers. Those two teams are free or about to be free. The Jags will need to spend their way out of Jacksonville, and spend big.

Well remember they have to include their TV money in the calculations they'd submit to the court. Which means there's not way they're losing money with how much they're getting off of that alone. And then they'd have to convince a local Jacksonville judge to that the city has not been maintaining their stadium up to standards which would be VERY difficult. And even then they'd STILL have to pay the lease termination fees. If anything I'd put the Jags as the least likely to move. The Chargers of course remain the odds on favorites and the Rams seem likely also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was either/or; either they are losing money or the city's not keeping up the place. Not both.

Nope, it's both. Which is why the Jags aren't going anywhere for a very long time. And that's not even taking into account their owner being quite happy with his situation as it is... Sure the media and a few in the NFL want them to move, but no one who actually has any say wants them to move, nor would they be able to if they wanted to. I'd actually peg the Jags as the least likely team, suggested by the media, to move. It's going to have to be one of the teams with no or an easy to break lease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that case, I agree.

I've consistently put them at a distant third.

The Vikings are making progress in Minnesota. The Niners are working towards their new place. The Jags seem anchored to their lousy situation.

That leaves the Rams, Chargers and Raiders as possible tenants in Farmers Field. Does anybody think that the NFL and the networks would be happy with only one team in LA? So we have two potential spots.

I just don't see the Raiders moving. They might, but the other two seem much more likely. The fact that it's one from each conference is icing on the cake.

So what's the current timeline for Farmers Field? They still looking to host their first game in 2015?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anybody think that the NFL and the networks would be happy with only one team in LA?

Not to mention, AEG. Two teams in Farmers Field - at least one playing a home game each weekend - means 18 weeks of increased foot-traffic at businesses in the LA Live! development, as well as any further development that AEG has a hand in bringing to fruition in the downtown area.

I just don't see the Raiders moving.

Not to Farmers Field anyway. Word on the street in Los Angeles is that AEG doesn't regard the Raiders as being a "fit" for the type of atmosphere they're striving to create in and around Farmers Field. Further, so long as Al Davis is still drawing breath, I can't imagine that Roger Goodell and the NFL brass are going to be inclined to give the Raiders a second crack at the lucrative Los Angeles market. They're not about to reward Davis for being a major pain in the league's collective keister for the better part of the last 25 years.

So what's the current timeline for Farmers Field? They still looking to host their first game in 2015?

AEG's goal from very early in the process targeted Farmers Field opening in 2016. If possible, they hoped the stadium would be finished in time to have its first event be the 50th Super Bowl in late January/early February of 2016. If not, they hoped that an NFL franchise could play the 2016 NFL season in Farmers Field, with the facility playing host to the 50th anniversary of Super Bowl I in late January/early February of 2017 to cap-off the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love, love, to have the Rams back. They never should have left in the first place. They're the only team, in my opinion, who belongs in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Rams. It just fits. St. Louis never deserved to have the Rams. I don't care that city has a team, it just shouldn't have been the Rams.

I hope a team commits to this stadium. This stadium plan is by far the best option we've had for a NFL team moving to Los Angeles since the Rams and Raiders left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honest question: which facility is worse, the OnSpecDome or the LA Coliseum? Neither one is really a license to print money.

Probably the Coliseum due to its historic register status, age, and earthquake repairs.

Although on the flip side you can fit roughly 27,000 more people into the Coliseum, so that needs to be considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that case, I agree.

I've consistently put them at a distant third.

The Vikings are making progress in Minnesota. The Niners are working towards their new place. The Jags seem anchored to their lousy situation.

That leaves the Rams, Chargers and Raiders as possible tenants in Farmers Field. Does anybody think that the NFL and the networks would be happy with only one team in LA? So we have two potential spots.

I just don't see the Raiders moving. They might, but the other two seem much more likely. The fact that it's one from each conference is icing on the cake.

So what's the current timeline for Farmers Field? They still looking to host their first game in 2015?

Besides the Raiders "image" problem in AEG's mind (and the NFL's) there's the added wrinkle that the NFL is gently prodding the Raiders in the direction of the Niners new digs in Santa Clara. They'd like them to do a New Meadowland's West kinda deal, which frankly makes sense for teams that only use their parks 10 days a year. And the Raiders have been somewhat receptive to the idea despite their desire to remain in a "grittier" town like an Oakland or LA. Fact is their fans would still come and still tailgate just as they do now and the Raiders would get their LONG desired new stadium without having to do ANY heavy lifting or ownership shuffling that would be required in LA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love, love, to have the Rams back. They never should have left in the first place. They're the only team, in my opinion, who belongs in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Rams. It just fits. St. Louis never deserved to have the Rams. I don't care that city has a team, it just shouldn't have been the Rams.

I hope a team commits to this stadium. This stadium plan is by far the best option we've had for a NFL team moving to Los Angeles since the Rams and Raiders left.

How does it fit any more than any of the other options? It's just that you were used to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honest question: which facility is worse, the OnSpecDome or the LA Coliseum? Neither one is really a license to print money.

Probably the Coliseum due to its historic register status, age, and earthquake repairs.

Although on the flip side you can fit roughly 27,000 more people into the Coliseum, so that needs to be considered.

What is the OnSpec Dome?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's why I still call the Green Bay Packers the... nevermind.

The Acme Packers?

Never a team name, no matter what they like to say now.

That was the sponsor name. And while it may be fashionable to sneer at sponsorship by saying things like "Manchester Aeons" and "Chelsea Samsungs", that doesn't make it the team name.

Samsung-have-been-Chelsea-001.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honest question: which facility is worse, the OnSpecDome or the LA Coliseum? Neither one is really a license to print money.

Probably the Coliseum due to its historic register status, age, and earthquake repairs.

Although on the flip side you can fit roughly 27,000 more people into the Coliseum, so that needs to be considered.

What is the OnSpec Dome?

The Edward Jones Dome. Because it was built that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's why I still call the Green Bay Packers the... nevermind.

The Acme Packers?

Never a team name, no matter what they like to say now.

That was the sponsor name. And while it may be fashionable to sneer at sponsorship by saying things like "Manchester Aeons" and "Chelsea Samsungs", that doesn't make it the team name.

Samsung-have-been-Chelsea-001.jpg

You mean the Packers are sponsored by the same company Wile E. Coyote uses? :P

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.