NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[colortv]

If the Raiders are locked out of Los Angeles, does everyone think it's more likely they try to "bolt" to San Antonio/St. Louis or just work out a deal to play in the 49ers stadium?

[HedleyLamarr]

If the Raiders are locked out of Los Angeles, does everyone think it's more likely they try to "bolt" to San Antonio/St. Louis or just work out a deal to play in the 49ers stadium?

They would likely try to hammer out a deal with the 49ers.

At some point, the perception of the league's stability is going to factor in, and if there's one thing the NFL is keen on, it's public opinion. The league can stomach the moving of the Rams from St. Louis. I would think the NFL would rather the Chargers stay put in San Diego than moving up the road, but TV deals play a hand in this and the NFL would prefer if the two conferences had a more-equal market strength instead of one conference getting the top 6 markets and the other conference having just 3 of the top 10. Moving from San Diego to LA can be argued that they're staying in the same relative area. The Raiders moving from Oakland to Santa Clara would be a similar argument that's used for the Chargers, but even closer.

I dunno, I'd think the NFL wants to limit how many teams move. They can stomach one easily. Two pushes it, but it'd be a move partially dictated by TV money. Three becomes the look of instability, kinda like the arena league.

By the way, has anyone seen the Rams schedule? It's a really strange final three games of the season, and an arrangement that gives the look of they know it's their last year there. Weeks 16 and 17 are road games, and the final home game is a Week 15 Thursday night game against Tampa Bay, buried on the NFL Network.

[2001mark]

The Raiders will not be leaving California. No chance, no way, no how.

[Gothamite]

Fanatic, I just mean that if Dodger fans had been given the extra decade that St. Louis could have had, they would have been able to work out a deal in which O'Malley stayed in Brooklyn. Most cities faced with relocation don't have that chance.

[FiddySicks]

If the Raiders are locked out of Los Angeles, does everyone think it's more likely they try to "bolt" to San Antonio/St. Louis or just work out a deal to play in the 49ers stadium?

The Raiders should've tried to get in on Jeans stadium from the very beginning.

[STL FANATIC]

Fanatic, I just mean that if Dodger fans had been given the extra decade that St. Louis could have had, they would have been able to work out a deal in which O'Malley stayed in Brooklyn. Most cities faced with relocation don't have that chance.

So you're referring to the extra decade that would have been locked in if the first tier clause had been followed? Gotcha.

Just don't think that's really a fair statement given that it would have cost St. Louis $700 million just to get to that point.

[Gothamite]

Had the CVC negotiated in good faith, they might not have gotten to that point.

[STL FANATIC]

Had the CVC negotiated in good faith, they might not have gotten to that point.

That's quite an assumption.

Word is the Rams refused to come to the table. Kroenke knew what he was doing the day he bought the team.

I don't know how we could get unbiased evidence supporting either claim, but it's completely unfair to suggest one with complete certainty.

[Gothamite]

Had the CVC negotiated in good faith, they might not have gotten to that point.

That's quite an assumption.

Word is the Rams refused to come to the table. Kroenke knew what he was doing the day he bought the team.

I don't know how we could get unbiased evidence supporting either claim, but it's completely unfair to suggest one with complete certainty.

The CVC came out of the gate with a half-baked lowball offer wrapped in misleading language. This was years after their own chairman publicly called for a new stadium plan. I called their negotiations "bad faith" at the time because of it, and their revised proposal didn't give me much reason to change that opinion. The arbitration panel wasn't terribly impressed with them either, bypassing even a sort of compromise in favor of the Rams' proposal.

I think Peacock and Blitz are engaging in good faith. I didn't see any evidence that the CVC ever was.

[STL FANATIC]

You can choose to believe what you want. We have no tangible evidence for any of this, only hearsay.

But it appears that well before the CVC officially put forth that arbitration offer, they sought to engage the Rams on a real long-term solution. The Rams wouldn't come to the table.

At that point, the arbitration was largely a formality. Every decision the CVC made concerning that arbitration had to be done with the context of "this is only worth 10 years." And in that context their actions are totally reasonable.

Apparently the wheels were set in motion to begin working with the NFL apart from the Rams around this time as Kroenke was entirely non-responsive.

[Gothamite]

One wonders why they waited until the last possible minute to publicly present a plan, four years after their own chairman first publicly called for one. But they didn't. And then when forced to present something, they presented a plan so anemic that the eventual arbitrators rejected it in full.

Those are facts, not beliefs.

Even if Kroenke wouldn't come to the table, they should have gone public to force the issue. Hell, they should have been working on this before Kroenke even bought controlling interest of the Rams - there, those are beliefs.

[STL FANATIC]

It's all beliefs. Your belief about how they should have gone about things and your belief about how they did go about things based on only a couple of facts.

We don't know how negotiations went down at all.

We know the city believes Kroenke and the Rams were barely participating. We know they made 3 offers during the process—two before arbitration, and one new offer during arbitration.

We don't know much else.

I also disagree with your belief that they should have gone public with anything. I don't see that they would have accomplished much positive there. The whole thing is a cluster*** predicated on awful decisions made in the early to mid 1990s, a mediocre building, and an extremely greedy man.

[IceCap]

The whole thing is a cluster*** predicated on awful decisions made in the early to mid 1990s, a mediocre building, and an extremely greedy man.

Could you clarify who the greedy man is, exactly? It's not Korenke. His preferred plan of action doesn't involve taking public money. From anyone.

[Rockstar Matt]

The whole thing is a cluster*** predicated on awful decisions made in the early to mid 1990s, a mediocre building, and an extremely greedy man.

Could you clarify who the greedy man is, exactly? It's not Korenke. His preferred plan of action doesn't involve taking public money. From anyone.

I was about to say. Didn't this whole thing start because a greedy old women? Who purposely mismanaged the Rams and forced her way to St. Louis, despite protests from other NFL owners who only dropped their protests once this greedy old women threatened legal action?

[STL FANATIC]

Oh good lord, gentlemen. I understand why you tout Kroenke as only requiring a very little bit of public money in his Inglewood scenario (that's the more accurate statement). That's fine. It is the preferred method of stadium building.

But why do you think Mr. Kroenke wants to get to Los Angeles? Because it's sunny there?

This is entirely about money.

Kroenke was the key piece to the deal that saw the Rams ripped from Los Angeles the first time—a deal in which he made a tremendous amount of money—and now he's seeking to rip a franchise from another fan base in order to make a tremendous amount of money. (I suppose that he'd be returning it to the first location helps, but I think that's more of a happy coincidence for him.)

The whole thing is a cluster*** predicated on awful decisions made in the early to mid 1990s, a mediocre building, and an extremely greedy man.

Could you clarify who the greedy man is, exactly? It's not Korenke. His preferred plan of action doesn't involve taking public money. From anyone.

I was about to say. Didn't this whole thing start because a greedy old women? Who purposely mismanaged the Rams and forced her way to St. Louis, despite protests from other NFL owners who only dropped their protests once this greedy old women threatened legal action?

Yes it did. You won't find me defending the Rams exit from LA. (Unless you try to blame the St. Louis fans, then I'll blame the awful LA fan base back then. Neither of which is fair.)

It was in fact Kroenke who made sure it happened.

[rams80]

I was always of the understanding that Kroenke was less of a facilitator and more brought on to balance out the financial loss of Los Angeles to the league by building formal ties with Wal Mart.

[IceCap]

It's more then a coincidence. You've admitted that the Rams leaving LA was wrong. If anything? This is righting a wrong.

Now I know that's probably the furthest thing from Stan's mind, but that doesn't change the end result. That the team will be returned to the fanbase that it was originally and unfairly taken from. And he's doing it all with his own money.

So let's recap. You've admitted the team leaving LA was wrong. You've admitted that Kroenke's plan for his LA-based stadium is the "preferred" way to go about building a new venue. So what's the problem? Aside from the fact that he's not keeping the team in St. Louis.

Kroenke's a businessman. A very successful one. So of course he's going to go where he can make the most money. Businesses don't thrive by staying in a less advantageous situation in the name of sentimentality. Expecting him to keep his team in a less valuable, and less enthusiastic, market by agreeing to a plan that will actually cost a municipality tax payer money? That's greedy.

[STL FANATIC]

I meant that it was a happy coincidence to Stan. He doesn't care about righting a wrong, it just happens to be the jackpot market for him.

I presume you're familiar with the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right." That's what the problem is. For all the same reasons they shouldn't have left LA, they shouldn't leave St. Louis. If you're intent on correcting that wrong, how many other wrongs will we seek to make right?

Sports are different from your typical business and there are more factors to consider. I should leave it at that, but let me ask you this: the Chargers and the Raiders won't to make a business decision by relocating to Los Angeles with a deal that will be almost entirely privately financed—why should they not be allowed to make that decision?

[STL FANATIC]

New renderings and details (not financial) from the St. Louis stadium plan just released. (I did see an allusion elsewhere to the Board of Alderman seeing a plan to consider this month, though.)

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_d1805dfc-d300-5e32-b69e-2e0fa41384cf.html

[STL FANATIC]

And more:

And more.