NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[Gothamite]

How much stock do you guys put in the NFL's supposed stance that they don't want 3 teams in Southern California(Meaning LA AND SD)?

As a casual fan who knows nothing much about it... enough I suppose. 3 franchises in the single SoCal tv market, unique cities or not, is a thing.

We're talking about a league that's been doing gangbusters without a single LA team for decades.

I'll be fascinated to see what happens with the Raiders if the Rams & Chargers were to be the 2x LA moves.

Keep in mind the population of Southern California is north of 20 million people, with probably 80% of that being in the LA metro.

Not to mention LA and San Diego are no more the same market than New York and Philadephia are. Hell, NYC and Philly are closer than LA and San Diego. Trying to conflate the two cities into one market is folly. There's no such thing as the "single SoCal TV market".

[2001mark]

How much stock do you guys put in the NFL's supposed stance that they don't want 3 teams in Southern California(Meaning LA AND SD)?

As a casual fan who knows nothing much about it... enough I suppose. 3 franchises in the single SoCal tv market, unique cities or not, is a thing.

We're talking about a league that's been doing gangbusters without a single LA team for decades.

I'll be fascinated to see what happens with the Raiders if the Rams & Chargers were to be the 2x LA moves.

Keep in mind the population of Southern California is north of 20 million people, with probably 80% of that being in the LA metro.

Not to mention LA and San Diego are no more the same market than New York and Philadephia are. Hell, NYC and Philly are closer than LA and San Diego. Trying to conflate the two cities into one market is folly. There's no such thing as the "single SoCal TV market".

I meant it as pocket market.

The same reason Adam Silver will never table the NBA playoffs 1-16, they don't want regions without local product.

[CubsFanBudMan]

The Chargers did that to themselves in this case when they claimed 30% of their business was L.A.-oriented.

[colortv]

The more I think about it the more the Chargers may have to rebrand if they move North. They would receive second rate support compared to the Rams or Raiders.

Then again, just ass many people/companies would probably be averse to supporting the Raiders as there would be jumping to them.

[zpqmaowl]

The Chargers are LA-oriented in that football fans in LA look at the schedule and go "hey, my ______s go to San Diego this year, let's go down for the weekend and the game."

[The_Admiral]

As someone who likes Joe Buck post the Randy Moss "mooning", where does all the dislike come from, and its not just him.

Probably comes from the way he always sounds like there's somewhere else he'd rather be.

[Gothamite]

The Chargers did that to themselves in this case when they claimed 30% of their business was L.A.-oriented.

Yeah, but as Sam Spade said, that's okay. Nobody believed them.

[dfwabel]

The Chargers did that to themselves in this case when they claimed 30% of their business was L.A.-oriented.

Yeah, but as Sam Spade said, that's okay. Nobody believed them.

30% is so nebulous. What does that even mean?

Only city of Los Angeles zip codes?

City and County of Los Angeles?

Does that include Orange, Ventura and/or Riverside Counties?

[CubsFanBudMan]

L.A. and Orange apparently:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/chi-chargers-could-fight-nfl-move-to-la-20141010-story.html

"Over the last 20 years, there hasn't been a team in the L.A. market. We have reached out into that market and 25 to 30 percent of our business comes from the L.A. (and) Orange County areas," Chargers owner Dean Spanos said Friday, according to the Sports Business Daily. "Putting a team in there right now, or two teams, would have a huge impact on our business going forward. So we are trying to protect our business in San Diego. It would really be harmful to us."

According to the Sports Business Daily, this marks the first time that the Chargers have revealed the amount of business they generate from the Los Angeles market, which sits 120 miles north of San Diego, with Orange County about 40 miles closer.

Despite that excerpt, I don't think Spanos was the first to claim it. Searching "Chargers 30 percent" generates interesting variety. It's in here if you scroll back far enough.

[2001mark]

Would San Diego NFL fans remain loyal to the LA Chargers? I'd have to think enough would yes?

I mean, they aren't the Clippers... neither literally nor figuratively (aka one of the worst franchises of all time).

One would have to assume the NFL owners are merely hoping to find the most revenue beyond insta relocation cash or whatever.

Whichever equation maxes out the Raiders + Chargers + Rams for LA + whichever 2nd city.

I'm pretty f'n sure they aren't debating which fans will be happiest. These are owners charging reg. season prices to watch pre-season injury games.

Let's go with LA Rams, San Diego Chargers, & Honolulu Raiders.

[The_Admiral]

Also the one thing that gives me pause about the Rams is that Kroenke is a native born and raised Missourian.

Yeah, big St. Louis Cardinals fan. He could really help them out by moving their competition out of town.

[STL FANATIC]

What continues to be overlooked in the St. Louis discussion is that the city is the one that broke the lease. There was no loophole that the team tried to exploit. The city agreed to maintain the EJD to a certain standard and they did not live up to their end of the agreement. Add the declining attendance numbers and you have every justification for Kroenke to get out of dodge.

Nobody has broken the lease—that's another big misunderstanding. Different actions triggered different clauses. Neither party has violated the lease. Everyone was and is within their rights as far as the contract is concerned.

And St. Louis' decision was the biggest no-brainer of all since accepting the arbitration ruling would have meant paying $700m in return for just 10 more years of commitment.

The Rams also were not being cooperative in negotiations, and so St. Louis had no idea whether the Rams would have been willing to participate in that $700m in funding. In all likelihood, they probably would not have. The Rams never wanted that proposal to move forward either. Both sides were just playing out the process that the lease dictated, but they both knew it wasn't going to be the option.

So both sides are clean as far as the lease is concerned. The question is whether or not an NFL team owner should be required to participate in good faith negotiations to find a stadium solution in the market. Some say yes. (The bylaws/guidelines say yes, but we know how little they matter.) Some say the owner should have his full legal rights and that should be that.

But that's the question. Because from the day Kroenke bought the team, the Rams never came to the table in good faith. Does it matter?

[STL FANATIC]

By the way, without rehashing it all, I just want to point out that last year on the air Thom Brennaman made much of the same case that I've made as it concerns NFL football, St. Louis, and the fans.

Brennaman has zero ties to St. Louis.

I get it, people disagree with the reasoning. Just pointing out that it's not just emotional St. Louisans who've expressed this opinion.

http://www.stltoday.com/entertainment/television/dan-caesar/st-louis-fans-praised-for-supporting-lousy-rams/article_2b127819-ca4d-5aa2-8465-8ca67cd89e13.html

[Gothamite]

Semantics, surely? "Violated" might be a strong word, but the larger point is valid - it was the actions of St. Louis which allowed the Rams to even get this far.

The CVC failed to upgrade the Dome to meet the "top tier" clause of the lease. Deliberately, by choice, but still. That failure to meet the clause broke the lease and allowed the Rams to opt out at their option.

[STL FANATIC]

Semantics, surely? "Violated" might be a strong word, but the larger point is valid - it was the actions of St. Louis which allowed the Rams to even get this far.

The CVC failed to upgrade the Dome to meet the "top tier" clause of the lease. Deliberately, by choice, but still. That failure to meet the clause broke the lease and allowed the Rams to opt out at their option.

I just added a whole bunch more to that post.

I would say that yes, the deliberate actions of the CVC allowed the lease to reach it's current state. But nobody violated or broke anything. It was exercising options.

The actual options go well beyond any standard contract, but the way they functioned—giving both parties rights to make certain choices—is pretty standard stuff. Disingenuous to suggest wrongdoing.

[Gothamite]

I don't think either word suggests wrongdoing. Maybe "violated" can carry the wrong connotation, but "broke" is accurate; there was a lease in place, but after the actions of the CVC there isn't one anymore. "Broke" is a neutral word, without a hint of moral disapprobation.

And no, you don't have to be an emotional St. Louisan to have some of those opinions. But it sure as hell helps.

[The_Admiral]

Sounds like Brennaman is saying the same thing I've been saying: that St. Louis football has been bad or nonexistent for over half a century and you can't expect wide and unwavering support for that. As for why he gave this little editorial on the air (and it seems like the Brennamans do that a lot, don't they?), I suppose it's not insignificant that St. Louis is still in the league and trying to stay in it. What else is the NFL's biggest TV partner going to do with a team that's trying to move without the commissioner's ringing endorsement, say they suck and should move?

That they've been better supported than the Houston Astros were isn't really important; the NFL is in such a high (and untenable, but anyway...) place in American culture right now that even horrible teams are shielded from getting hit in ratings and the gate.

As for the lease, it was ridiculous and borderline bad-faith to begin with, expecting a slapped-up piece of crap like that dome to be kept in the upper echelon of NFL stadiums. It's hard to blame St. Louis/CVC too much for not holding up their end of that. I blame them for building the stupid thing in the first place.

[Gothamite]

Yeah, but that lease is the only way they got the Rams out of LA in the first place. They accepted the team, they signed the deal, they're bound by it.

I don't blame them for choosing not to keep the Rams in town. But that is the choice they made, and when/if the Rams leave they'll share a large part of the responsibility.

If Brooklyn had been given ten additional years to work out a solution with O'Malley, we'd still have the Dodgers today.

[STL FANATIC]

I don't think either word suggests wrongdoing. Maybe "violated" can carry the wrong connotation, but "broke" is accurate; there was a lease in place, but after the actions of the CVC there isn't one anymore. "Broke" is a neutral word, without a hint of moral disapprobation.

And no, you don't have to be an emotional St. Louisan to have some of those opinions. But it sure as hell helps.

I guess we can agree to disagree on semantics. Broke is a negative word, and there is indeed a lease in place. And it's the same lease it was. After 20 years, the lease was subject to a couple of options (first by the CVC, and then by the team), and ultimately those were both exercised.

It's unfair to suggest anybody worked outside of the contract.

[STL FANATIC]

Yeah, but that lease is the only way they got the Rams out of LA in the first place. They accepted the team, they signed the deal, they're bound by it.

I don't blame them for choosing not to keep the Rams in town. But that is the choice they made, and when/if the Rams leave they'll share a large part of the responsibility.

If Brooklyn had been given ten additional years to work out a solution with O'Malley, we'd still have the Dodgers today.

St. Louis hasn't chosen to let the Rams leave. St. Louis chose to lessen the damage of a bad deal (that yes, they agreed to).

From there they've worked diligently to come to a new deal, and the Rams have been unwilling to work with them on it. Now, as I said, it's a matter of whether you believe the Rams ought to have to try to work on a new deal or if they should just be outright free agents.

I don't follow you on the Dodgers point, to be honest.