NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[IceCap]

No one's trying to take the Browns and Jets away partly because fans are still showing up despite seasons upon seasons of sub-standard football.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Deadspin (and presumably) others report that if the Chargers and Raiders both be to LA, the Chargers and Cardinals would swap conferences.

I'm okay with this. Seattle might be the more natural candidate to switch back due to their more immediate history in the AFC, but three conference titles in a bit more than a decade gives them rights to stay, I think.

[STL FANATIC]

No one's trying to take the Browns and Jets away partly because fans are still showing up despite seasons upon seasons of sub-standard football.

Cleveland is a great football market. They're up there with the handful that will pack the house for bad football. Not many cities can say that.

(They also did lose a team once because stadium issues are the real things that create these scenarios.)

[STL FANATIC]

Deadspin (and presumably) others report that if the Chargers and Raiders both be to LA, the Chargers and Cardinals would swap conferences.

I'm okay with this. Seattle might be the more natural candidate to switch back due to their more immediate history in the AFC, but three conference titles in a bit more than a decade gives them rights to stay, I think.

I still don't understand why the Rams (in this scenario remaining in St. Louis) wouldn't be the team to swap out.

They are totally out of place playing in the NFC West. The only reason they're their is to preserve a rivalry with San Francisco which has long dwindled, and would seem to be concretely crushed if LA gets new teams that aren't the Rams.

Move them to the AFC West where they'd have a natural rivalry with Kansas City and a not totally absurd journey to Denver.

But for some reason that scenario is never mentioned. I don't understand it.

[IceCap]

Ice, I've posted lists of attendance figures compared to records of multiple franchises time and time again. I've broken it all down. It's not about being pro-St. Louis (of course I am, though), it's hard facts. And they're repeatedly dismissed. Because the St. Louis Rams don't have a legacy to any of you. The LA Rams do, and moreover right now, the San Diego Chargers do. So screw the 19 year history of the St. Louis Rams.

(And yes, screw it. I saw one hell of a football team for a few years, but I've also seen worse football up close than any of you have ever suffered through. A predominantly miserable 19 years it's been.)

--

It's not objective when you ignore the numbers every time they're posted. Only the St. Louis fans get held t the attendance standard here and there is NEVER any allowance for how bad the football team is. Ever. You don't care. And that's—yes—ignorant of the way the majority of sports market in this country are.

A few things.

St. Louis isn't the only market being held to the attendance standard. The Jags were the hot topic for a while primarily because of their lacklustre attendance. The fanbase started to show up and the owner saw that the market was worth saving. He's invested in the team and stadium, and attendance is now steady.

The Rams? Their arenas are empty on gameday, or filled with fans of the opposing team. Both of which have happened live on nationally broadcast games over the past two seasons. It's not unfair to use that to judge St. Louis as a NFL market.

As far as history goes? The first Super Bowl I remember with any sort of clarity would be Super Bowl XXXI. The Rams have been St. Louis' team for as long as I can remember following the NFL. Appreciation of history is one thing, but personal experience is paramount. The Rams are as much St. Louis as they are LA's, if we're just going off appreciation and nostalgia for history.

Finally, appreciation is contextual. My experience isn't the experience of a LA sports fan's, and neither is yours. Losing a team sucks, but when you consider the underhanded way in which the Rams were taken from LA in the first place? The return to southern California doesn't exactly seem like an injustice.

But that's not even why I used the word ignorant. That was about the financing. I've studied the numbers. I've studied the budget. I've studied the funding sources. I've studied the laws that created them. And I've read every projection that's come out concerning the future numbers. And the conclusion is that St. Louis can absolutely afford to build the stadium. It will probably make a little money for the state and be somewhere between a small financial loss and small financial gain (depending on multiple factors including inflation) for the city. It may not be the best use of the funds, but the funding stream does already exist, it does have limited use, and it is primarily generated from out of owners. I don't believe the stadium is a must build, and I don't fully support the stadium plan, but financially? It's fine. And we can afford it. It's wouldn't be the boondoggle that these things have the potential to be.

No, it's not fine financially. No plan that allocates public money for arenas for privately owned entities is fine financially. Factor in the fact that the team doesn't even want to play in the city? It's absurd.

Can St. Louis afford to build a stadium? Sure. Should they spend the money to build a stadium? No. Not to mention how shameful the whole process has played out. Denying the citizenry a vote for an expenditure like this? That should be grounds for impeachment.

What's funny is that Stan's doing everything the right way. He exercised his legal right to buy the team (the only "rule" the law cares about, NFL bylaws are meaningless at the end of the day). He bought the land he wants a stadium on himself. He's using his own money to fund the construction of that stadium. He's doing what every single one of us has wanted to see out of a billionaire pro sports owner. If you're a fan of responsible civic leadership and responsible corporate behaviour? Kroenke should be who you're rooting for. The only problem, from your perspective, is that he's not doing it in your hometown.

That's just not enough. Kroenke's LA plan is the most responsible and fair of any plan currently on the table.

Calling it a status symbol is such a freaking straw man. Nobody that supports the stadium gives two craps about the status of the NFL. That IS a selling point, but it's just that. People that want the stadium want it because they're Rams fans.

I know I don't care about it as a status symbol, that's for sure. I think the NFL gets knocked down a couple pegs in the next 10-15 years. I think telling the NFL to screw off would be a status symbol.

But God help me I love my Rams. And that's the only reason I have any desire to see this through. I don't give a flying flip about the status of it and neither does anyone else in reality.

But for what it's worth, even if I did only care about it as a status symbol, that's still a heck of a lot better reason to keep a team somewhere than the division a team plays in.

Heh. No. It's not. If you're just interested in a status symbol? You don't care about the game. Or the team. Just what having the team means for your city.

The relocation thing is indicative of a strong connection to the sport's history, and not wanting to see that legacy sullied to satisfy a bunch of self-righteous "fans" who only care about the Rams in so much as what it means to have them in the city.

It's just the feeling I get from St. Louis. The lack of fan support but the desperate attempts to throw public money around and circumnavigate the rights of the citizenry to keep a team in town that doesn't want to be there? The status symbol thing is evident. St. Louis thinks its more prestigious with the NFL then without. And that's the overriding factor because the city's sports fanbase has demonstrated time and time again that it very much cares what everyone else thinks of them.

Bottomline, I know you're not attacking me personally. But you're attacking two things I take a great deal of pride in and know a great deal about. And I'm going to call you out when you're wrong about them.

Prioritizing factors on what matters for relocation is opinion. We have different ones. And technically your judgement on the St. Louis market is opinion too. But an opinion based on a faulty understanding of the facts warrants correction.

The attendance figures aren't in question. The stadium sitting empty or full of 49ers fans on (inter)national tv isn't in dispute. The fact that any city, St. Louis included, has much better things to raise and spend money on then a football stadium for a team owned by a billionaire isn't in dispute. That government officials have acted in the worst interests of the citizenry isn't in dispute.

That's what I base my judgment of St. Louis as a NFL market on.

Ultimately? Love him or hate him Olbermann is right. If stadiums were the money making propositions everyone says they are owners would build them themselves instead of forcing cities to spend millions of taxpayer money on them. Except the owner isn't doing that in this case. He wants to walk away, and save the city hundreds of millions. It's the city who insists on this tried and failed proposition despite the owner's clear intentions. Why?

They want their NFL status symbol.

[STL FANATIC]

You're the one who said St. Louis couldn't afford it. Now you've admitted they can. I never stated that I thought it was in our best interests nor have I don't anything but denounce the manner the stadium plan has proceeded (including stifling the public vote that should be required.)

Anyways. I won't go back and forth with you.

I guess you're right. You totally have a better grasp on the St. Louis market than I do.

[IceCap]

They can't. No city, unless they have a ridiculous surplus of funds, can afford a multi-million dollar deal to build a stadium for a billionaire. You yourself even admitted it might end up as a lose for the city.

You also admit that the stifling of the public vote is wrong, and that the deal isn't in the city's best interests. Yet you're cheering for it over the proposal that would see the billionaire spend his own money on land and construction because SPORTS!

That's what I find so objectionable about all of this. You know St. Louis shouldn't make this deal, and yet you want them to make it (against the wishes of the owner) because you can't bare to see an organisation willingly opt to leave your home town. It's more about St. Louis' credibility as a sports town then what's best of the city, team, or league at this point.

[OnWis97]

Deadspin (and presumably) others report that if the Chargers and Raiders both be to LA, the Chargers and Cardinals would swap conferences.

I'm okay with this. Seattle might be the more natural candidate to switch back due to their more immediate history in the AFC, but three conference titles in a bit more than a decade gives them rights to stay, I think.

Interesting.

Kinda reminds me of when the BigTen went to their silly division alignments based on a snapshot of the day (i.e., assuming each team would remain in its then-current spot on the pecking order). The Cardinals are from the way old days of the NFL. The Seahawks are an AFC expansion team. Admittedly, if the Seahawks are still good when the moves happen, it would be weird to see a team that, say, represented the NFC in the Super Bowl go straight to the AFC. But in the long run that's what I'd rather see.

[STL FANATIC]

They can't. No city, unless they have a ridiculous surplus of funds, can afford a multi-million dollar deal to build a stadium for a billionaire. You yourself even admitted it might end up as a lose for the city.

You also admit that the stifling of the public vote is wrong, and that the deal isn't in the city's best interests. Yet you're cheering for it over the proposal that would see the billionaire spend his own money on land and construction because SPORTS!

That's what I find so objectionable about all of this. You know St. Louis shouldn't make this deal, and yet you want them to make it (against the wishes of the owner) because you can't bare to see an organisation willingly opt to leave your home town. It's more about St. Louis' credibility as a sports town then what's best of the city, team, or league at this point.

First off, being able to afford and making money on something are NOT the same things. AT ALL. I can afford to go buy myself a decent lunch. I'd save more money if I just snacked and waited until dinner. Lunch is ultimately a net-loss.

It comes down to how big of a loss and whether it's an expenditure that the city so desires to have. Public financing of stadiums is pure-BS but it's also the world we live in unless you want to be the one to loss your team. It's a terrible scenario to be in.

But I've read through all the math. I started opposed to the stadium. Read more numbers, read the budgets, read the laws. I've read the projections. And most importantly to me, I've seen them modifying the stadium site plan to something that I believe is on the right track for being a positive urban development to the city. Where does that put me now? It puts me with one foot over the fence in favor of building the stadium.

I would vote for it. I should have the right to vote for it. And then I would vote for it.

I don't strongly believe it's in the city's best financial interests (though I think it IS in the state's best financial interests—they stand to gain significantly on income tax at least until they get rid of it all). I do believe it is in the city's overall quality of life and development interests. The caveat here is that this assumes negotiating a lease that is reasonable unlike the last go around.

Am I cheering for this? Not exactly. Only you guys think I'm cheering for it. When I talk about this with Rams fans and St. Louis people, they think I'm anti-stadium. Because I've approached this whole thing with a critical eye. And I point out the flaws. And I point out whether it's the right way to spend the money. So I'm not cheering for it. I'm casually supportive of it while remaining critical.

I would like to keep my football team though, so I'm glad to feel decent about the stadium plan.

You say that Kroenke is doing this as we wish all owners would do, but you know that not to be the case. Yes we want all owners to spend their own money, but do we really want them up and living any time they want to? Keep in mind that the plan of the Raiders and Chargers is almost entirely privately financed as well. (Goldman-Sachs may be the financier, but that's a private business agreement between them and the two teams.) And it serves two teams. But you don't support THAT one because you don't want to see the Chargers leave San Diego.

Instead, you suggest the Chargers should accept San Diego's offer of public money (the kind that you think should never been spent on stadiums).

We're all hypocrites I suppose.

All I can say is that again, I've spent a LOT of time studying things, and I believe the deal is okay for St. Louis if we so desire to keep our football team and potentially attract a soccer team. I simply wish we had the opportunity to express our desires through a vote, as we were supposed to.

I'll say it again, it's not about a status symbol, it's about liking sports and wanting to have a sports team to root for. (And then it was about determining costs/benefits.)

[Gothamite]

No one's trying to take the Browns and Jets away partly because fans are still showing up despite seasons upon seasons of sub-standard football.

Cleveland is a great football market. They're up there with the handful that will pack the house for bad football. Not many cities can say that.

(They also did lose a team once because stadium issues are the real things that create these scenarios.)

Stadium issues create the scenarios, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think fan support forced the NFL to keep a team in Cleveland, even if they had to take a couple years off.

Fans can have more power than you seem willing to admit.

[infrared41]

I've also seen worse football up close than any of you have ever suffered through. A predominantly miserable 19 years it's been.)

Dear, STL FANATIC,

You're kidding, right?

Signed,

Cleveland Browns fans

and New York Jets fans. There more than a dozen teams that would gladly take the St. Louis Rams 19 years.

I'm not kidding, I just think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I certainly understand and appreciate that the Super Bowl era means my overall experience has been WAY more fortunate than yours in the past 2 decades.

Not really. I'm part owner of the Green Bay Packers. We've had a little bit of success in the NFL.

[STL FANATIC]

No one's trying to take the Browns and Jets away partly because fans are still showing up despite seasons upon seasons of sub-standard football.

Cleveland is a great football market. They're up there with the handful that will pack the house for bad football. Not many cities can say that.

(They also did lose a team once because stadium issues are the real things that create these scenarios.)

Stadium issues create the scenarios, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think fan support forced the NFL to keep a team in Cleveland, even if they had to take a couple years off.

Fans can have more power than you seem willing to admit.

I thought I just credited Cleveland for being an upper echelon football market.

[infrared41]

No one's trying to take the Browns and Jets away partly because fans are still showing up despite seasons upon seasons of sub-standard football.

Cleveland is a great football market. They're up there with the handful that will pack the house for bad football. Not many cities can say that.

(They also did lose a team once because stadium issues are the real things that create these scenarios.)

Stadium issues create the scenarios, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think fan support forced the NFL to keep a team in Cleveland, even if they had to take a couple years off.

Fans can have more power than you seem willing to admit.

I thought I just credited Cleveland for being an upper echelon football market.

If by "upper echelon football market" you mean a bunch of morons who take the NFL far too seriously and believe that even the slightest criticism of their spectacularly inept and utterly hopeless franchise is a personal affront to everything they believe in, then yeah, Cleveland is definitely an upper echelon football market.

[STL FANATIC]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I mean.

[IceCap]

Keep in mind that the plan of the Raiders and Chargers is almost entirely privately financed as well. (Goldman-Sachs may be the financier, but that's a private business agreement between them and the two teams.) And it serves two teams. But you don't support THAT one because you don't want to see the Chargers leave San Diego.

Instead, you suggest the Chargers should accept San Diego's offer of public money (the kind that you think should never been spent on stadiums).

We're all hypocrites I suppose.

Heh. I'm not from San Diego. I want the Chargers to go wherever they can thrive as a football team. If that's San Diego? Great. LA? Great. St. Louis? Great. Sioux Falls? Great. My fandom is for the team, not the city. Your romantic view of pro sports in St. Louis may not like that very much, but that's what happens when you don't have a true "home" team in a league you like to follow. You grow attachments to franchises. Not locales.

My problems with the Chargers-to-LA deal are as such.

It, as it currently stands, would accommodate the Raiders and Chargers. Which would reek havoc with the traditional alignment of the AFL/AFC. You may not care for pro football history from before nineteen years ago, but I do.

It's timing is suspect, and the Chargers' rationale is childish. They cried foul over Stan's plan, claiming a team that abandoned southern California (due to the machinations of the team's then pro-St. Louis owner) shouldn't get to come back in and claim it. What they do follow that up with? Partnering with the Oakland Raiders on a LA-based stadium. You want to talk about hypocrisy? There it is.

The Chargers have acted like petulant children since the early 2000s, at the earliest. They've claimed that LA is vital to their financial survival, and yet never considered moving there in the nearly twenty years since it was left vacant. You'd think they would have seized the opportunity before now if LA was so vital to the team's economic viability.

They've also treated the city of San Diego with similar contempt, putting up roadblocks any time the city tried to reach out to them to work on a deal.

Is the city of San Diego's plan any better for its citizenry then St. Louis' plan is for its citizenry? No. The difference is that the Rams have made it known they don't want to play in St. Louis. The Chargers have continued to say their first choice is to work something out in San Diego. Now it may be lip service, but it's out there. And the city has done what the league wants. Problem is the league will try to squeeze every bit of blood from that stone before its satisfied.

Neither deal should be made, but at least San Diego's makes sense in so far as the team it's being offered to wants to stay in the region. St. Louis is throwing money at a billionaire who wants nothing to do with them.

Which is a sticking point. St. Louis sports culture can't account for the fact that someone doesn't want to be part of their constructed identity as "the Best."

You say that Kroenke is doing this as we wish all owners would do, but you know that not to be the case.

No it is the case. You just don't like it because he's not doing it in your home town. That's the be-all-end-all of this. Kroenke's got the easiest plan on the table. He bought the land with his own money. He wants to build the stadium with his own money. His move wouldn't disrupt existing alignments. Your objection to it is purely rooted in homer fanboyism. You don't want the Rams to leave. So you're against Kroenke's LA-based plan. Even if it's everything anyone who follows this sort of thing could ever want out of a billionaire team owner.

Fair enough. That's your reason. I just rather we dispense with the nonsense and admit that's why you're opposed to what is a dream scenario. Instead of trying to dress your objection up as anything more then that.

For everyone not willing to cling onto the NFL in St. Louis? Stan's plan makes the most sense.

First off, being able to afford and making money on something are NOT the same things. AT ALL. I can afford to go buy myself a decent lunch. I'd save more money if I just snacked and waited until dinner. Lunch is ultimately a net-loss.

I may have majored in a Liberal-Arts field but I understand how basic math works.

Take it from someone who works in the public sector. Spending public money on a billionaire's football team is a GROSS waste of funds however you cut it. Even if it means you lose your precious team. There are more important things to spend those hundreds of millions on.

It comes down to how big of a loss and whether it's an expenditure that the city so desires to have. Public financing of stadiums is pure-BS but it's also the world we live in unless you want to be the one to loss your team. It's a terrible scenario to be in.

You could gain some proper perspective and realise that sports aren't the be-all-end-all, and losing your NFL team may not be the worst thing in the world if it helps the city from an economic perspective.

We're all sports fans. It's why we're here. Sports, however, shouldn't overrule a preference for responsible civic government.

I'll say it again, it's not about a status symbol, it's about liking sports and wanting to have a sports team to root for.

That's a problem. When you let a billion-dollar-a-year distraction drain your city of hundreds of millions it could spend elsewhere. Having a NFL team root for (and thus feel better about the prestige of the city, ie turning it into a status symbol) shouldn't be anywhere near the top of the city of St. Louis' priorities.

[Gothamite]

No one's trying to take the Browns and Jets away partly because fans are still showing up despite seasons upon seasons of sub-standard football.

Cleveland is a great football market. They're up there with the handful that will pack the house for bad football. Not many cities can say that.

(They also did lose a team once because stadium issues are the real things that create these scenarios.)

Stadium issues create the scenarios, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think fan support forced the NFL to keep a team in Cleveland, even if they had to take a couple years off.

Fans can have more power than you seem willing to admit.

I thought I just credited Cleveland for being an upper echelon football market.

Yes. Entirely because the fans made it so. Which was my point. Not market size, not number of Fortune 500 companies, not anything other than fans wanting to use their voice.

Fans can indeed have power. If they really want to.

[Still MIGHTY]

St. Louis pizza is garbage.

Vote Los Angeles.

[buckeye]

St. Louis pizza is garbage.

Vote Los Angeles.

I'm sold.

[infrared41]

St. Louis pizza is garbage.

Vote Los Angeles.

St. Louis "pizza" isn't pizza, it's a big cracker with tomato sauce and melted chemicals posing as cheese.

[TheOldRoman]

St. Louis pizza is garbage.

Vote Los Angeles.

I'll withhold my vote until I hear Los Angeles's pizza proposal.