NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[Gothamite]

Think you were looking for another thread, friend.

[The_Admiral]

nbd. I'm only about 50/50 with my posts having anything to do with the topic of the thread they're in. At least his post is about football.

[teddthebucfan]

Think you were looking for another thread, friend.

Oops.

[DaytonBlue]

I think the New York Islanders situation is a great example of how San Diegans will not continue to be fans of the Chargers if they move to LA.

Uniondale to Brooklyn is considered the same metropolitan area and the Islanders attendance hasn't been great at Barclays (though I'm sure it would be better if they played in a proper hockey arena).

Since SD and LA are two separate metros, the Chargers could move to St. Louis and it would be the same as if they moved to LA.

[rams80]

I think the New York Islanders situation is a great example of how San Diegans will not continue to be fans of the Chargers if they move to LA.

Uniondale to Brooklyn is considered the same metropolitan area and the Islanders attendance hasn't been great at Barclays (though I'm sure it would be better if they played in a proper hockey arena).

Since SD and LA are two separate metros, the Chargers could move to St. Louis and it would be the same as if they moved to LA.

football =/= hockey with regards to attendance and willingness of fans to travel.

[STL FANATIC]

I don't know about attendance, but in terms of fans remaining fans, I doubt as if the Islanders have lost many at all. But I think that's all about marketing. The Islanders may have moved to an entirely different place, but they didn't act like they did. They didn't rebrand. They didn't consider it a relocation. They just moved to an arena that was somewhere else.

Whoever moves to LA is MOVING TO LA. It's a relocation. And fans are more likely to drop off as a result.

[JayMac]

I know you are too young to remember the Cardinals move to Phoenix, STL, but I'm wondering...Do you know of many people in your area that still root for the Cardinals? None of the Philadelphia teams that I root for have ever moved, so I don't know what that would be like.

[OnWis97]

I know you are too young to remember the Cardinals move to Phoenix, STL, but I'm wondering...Do you know of many people in your area that still root for the Cardinals? None of the Philadelphia teams that I root for have ever moved, so I don't know what that would be like.

I am sure he does not...given that the Rams have been around for a while.

When I lost the North Stars, I had friends who were cheering for them in the Cup Finals. I personally was not, but many were. Did anyone really hang on to the franchise as hard core fans? No. But this and the Cards to Phoenix are apples and oranges.

I am not denying that some SD fans would stop rooting for the Chargers; no doubt that's true. What I am thinking is that the geographic proximity could make a difference. Games, which tend to be on weekends, are accessible and I am guessing every game will be on network TV.

I don't buy the Islanders example because I suspect going from suburban LI (where I admittedly have never been) to Brooklyn is a huge pain in the ass, particularly on a weeknight. If it were an NFL team making that move, I tend to doubt it would chase very many fans away at all.

I cannot speak for San Diegans. I don't know how they feel about LA, that travel distance, or, frankly, the Chargers. I doubt any would prefer that this move occur but I have to think you'll hold onto more with the name than by overhauling.

And do we really want to just put the Chargers "on hiatus?" They may never get a team. Meanwhile we'd have an "expansion" team in LA and a (potentially) forever-contracted team in San Diego.

[STL FANATIC]

I know you are too young to remember the Cardinals move to Phoenix, STL, but I'm wondering...Do you know of many people in your area that still root for the Cardinals? None of the Philadelphia teams that I root for have ever moved, so I don't know what that would be like.

SOME still do, but it's a very small number.

The Cardinals left just before I was born, but from what I've gathered is that most people pretty quickly switched allegiances to the Chiefs or Bears (if they continued following the NFL). There's an unfortunately large number of Packers fans as well (I only say unfortunate because it makes no sense—I have nothing against the Packers), but that may be just your typical historically great franchise front runners sort of thing.

What's actually weird to me, though, is how many Rams fans from LA continued to root for the Rams in St. Louis. At this moment in time, that's making them look real good. But just in general, I find it so weird. I root for my local teams because they represent my local area. I would never keep my allegiances with a franchise that spurned my town.

As OnWis97 says, though, San Diego to LA is probably a good bit different. They'd be spurning San Diego, but still be near enough to follow quite easily. I'm sure that would lead to a mixed bag as far as people who stick with them and people who refuse to.

[STL FANATIC]

Oh, also, I came here to give a little update. Just my view on things, no journalistic reports.

The St. Louis Board of Alderman continues to discuss and hold hearings for the funding bill. My impression is that there is a very real chance this bill never gets out of committee. It's an 8 person committee, and I believe it just requires a simple majority to pass. The President of the Board of Alderman can play tie breaker. And he would vote for it, I'm pretty sure. But I don't know if they can get the 4 votes to pass it. They may need to talk a couple into abstaining to get the majority.

If it DOES pass the committee, I do expect it to pass (not with out heated discussions first) the full board without too much trouble. But it may never get there.

And at this point, I'm pretty sure my feelings are clearing up: DON'T DO IT.

It's a bad deal. It just is. It's way too much public money from the City. All stadium deals are too much public money, but the total public contribution isn't really my issue. It's the way it's split up. This is a good deal for the state, and it could be a reasonable deal for the region. But the region isn't participating. Only the City of St. Louis is. And it's just too big of a burden to bear.

Still, I love the Rams, and that makes you want to stretch your limits.

But I also hate the sport of football. I hate the NFL. And I hope and believe that both will begin to decrease in popularity as they fail to address safety issues (because frankly I'm not sure the issues CAN be adequately addressed).

But with the Rams absolute no-show against the Bears today, I just realized I get ZERO benefits from this team. We tell you all constantly how bad we've had it for the great majority of the years in which St. Louis has had NFL football. We do this to defend ourselves as a fan base.

But then we (or really stadium supporters) talk out the other sides of our (their) mouth to convince you that sports have an intangible benefit that goes beyond economics. Generally speaking, it's true.

But at some point you have to call a spade a spade, right? At some point 50 years of NFL football becomes a pretty good sample size, right?

Yes, in theory, a well-run organization could be a great asset for the city and region of St. Louis. But in 50 years, it almost never has been. I say enough. It's not worth the investment. It's time to move on.

Preferably to something with a real future like the MLS.

[colortv]

The Carson project already had more owners in its corner prior to Iger's arrival, sources said, including several key owners on the Los Angeles Committee like Jerry Richardson, Art Rooney and John Mara, while the owners who most strongly align with Kroenke to this point are Jerry Jones (Cowboys), Bob Kraft (Patriots), Dan Snyder (Redskins), Jeffrey Lurie (Eagles), Woody Johnson (Jets), Ziggy Wilf (Vikings) and Steve Biscotti (Ravens). Bengals owner Mike Brown often abstains from such votes and thus could be considered part of the nine "non-Carson" votes required to prevent anything passing, while the Bills, Falcons and 49ers are among the franchises viewed as potentially swinging either way.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason-la-canfora/25374052/la-relocation-owners-welcome-disney-ceo-timetable-could-be-pushed-back

L.A. tug-of-war looming

The battle lines are being drawn over the future of the NFL in Los Angeles, and there’s currently no clear solution.

As Peter King of TheMMQB.com explained on NBC’s Football Night in America, the old-guard of NFL owners believe that Chargers owner Dean Spanos deserves the spot in Carson. The Wall Street crowd (as Peter put it) prefers to let Kroenke build a venue in Inglewood, which would be more profitable — and which could have plenty of free stuff for the league like new (and free) studio space for NFL Network.

Jason La Canfora of CBS listed on Sunday the owners who support Kroenke, which when added with Kroenke could nudge the total toward the magic number of nine. However, PFT has learned that at least one of the owners identified as supporting Kroenke doesn’t actually support Kroenke. If more actually don’t support Kroenke, Spanos could win the vote.

Aiding Spanos is the perception among more than a few owners that Kroenke hasn’t respected the league’s processes in positioning himself to move to Los Angeles

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/11/15/l-a-tug-of-war-looming/

[BBTV]

If those are the names behind Inglewood then that's what's getting done. Those are the big hitters in terms of franchise value. Again - what if he just gives the other owners the finger and starts building anyway and signs a temp lease in LA for next year? Hasn't it been proven that they can't stop him? Sure the league wouldn't give them a SB and other perks if he moves against their wishes, but it still seems the juice is worth the squeeze.

[STL FANATIC]

I'm not entirely sure that's true. As bizarre as it is to say about the NFL, I'm not sure the guys with the most money have all the power here. I think some of the other owners have more influence despite not having the pockets of Kroenke, Jones, etc.

BUT, nothing would shock me.

[The_Admiral]

Storing votes in his cheeks for the upcoming winter.

[bosrs1]

And the Cleveland Deal should never be invoked ever again under any circumstances.

I totally agree...though it's a debate we've exhausted around here.

Specifically for the Chargers, I'd argue that a Cleveland Deal makes less sense than it did for Cleveland or would have for Houston. First, the Chargers have history in LA (one year of AFL history, but still...). Second, the distance is not that great; NFL season ticket holders travel further than that to go to games (I personally know someone who does so from Ames, IA to the VIkings games), so it's quite possible for the LA Chargers to retain a meaningful portion of its current San Diego Chargers base. Even for non-traveling fans, the Chargers would retain the uniforms/history and TV priority. It's not unreasonable to expect that many people would keep watching, certainly more so than St. Louis fans sticking with the Rams. Third, how likely would San Diego be to get a team? If they did, I suppose that could be a point in the "Cleveland Deal" favor but dumping an entire history with no guarantee it will be resurrected is even worse than the Browns situation (where at least we knew it was coming back). I suppose they could do a "Sonics Deal" and change the name / keep the history until such time as San Diego gets a team. And hey, sports fans just love pulling out the White-Out bottles. But I stick by the stance that the best way to help the Chargers with having a fan base in SoCal is to keep the identity. Maybe the Chargers could be LA and south and the Raiders could be LA and north (assuming those are the two teams...)

My problem with keeping the name is that San Diegans will disown the Chargers if they move and keep the name. Who are San Diegans supposed to root for if the Chargers leave and keep the name?

I was suggesting that San Diegans will be less likely to disown the Chargers if they keep the name. They are not moving that far away and will remain the weekly TV attraction. I am not really sure whether that's true or not, but I tend to doubt changing names will actually have them "disown" the team less. So the only negative to keeping the name is future consideration of a future San Diego franchise, which may or may not every exist.

But still, there are those in SD who consider LA a regional rival.

Yeah that's pretty much every sports fan in San Diego. Doesn't matter what name the franchise currently known as the San Diego Chargers takes... they'll not be keeping most of their current fans if they move north. San Diegans who still want to watch football will likely either find new teams to root for, drop the NFL as a thing they watch entirely, or simply root for whomever is playing the Chargers in a particular week.

[colortv]

If those are the names behind Inglewood then that's what's getting done. Those are the big hitters in terms of franchise value. Again - what if he just gives the other owners the finger and starts building anyway and signs a temp lease in LA for next year? Hasn't it been proven that they can't stop him? Sure the league wouldn't give them a SB and other perks if he moves against their wishes, but it still seems the juice is worth the squeeze.

What does it matter if an owner is worth $5 million or $5 billion if each owner's vote only counts as 1?

And the Cleveland Deal should never be invoked ever again under any circumstances.

I totally agree...though it's a debate we've exhausted around here.

Specifically for the Chargers, I'd argue that a Cleveland Deal makes less sense than it did for Cleveland or would have for Houston. First, the Chargers have history in LA (one year of AFL history, but still...). Second, the distance is not that great; NFL season ticket holders travel further than that to go to games (I personally know someone who does so from Ames, IA to the VIkings games), so it's quite possible for the LA Chargers to retain a meaningful portion of its current San Diego Chargers base. Even for non-traveling fans, the Chargers would retain the uniforms/history and TV priority. It's not unreasonable to expect that many people would keep watching, certainly more so than St. Louis fans sticking with the Rams. Third, how likely would San Diego be to get a team? If they did, I suppose that could be a point in the "Cleveland Deal" favor but dumping an entire history with no guarantee it will be resurrected is even worse than the Browns situation (where at least we knew it was coming back). I suppose they could do a "Sonics Deal" and change the name / keep the history until such time as San Diego gets a team. And hey, sports fans just love pulling out the White-Out bottles. But I stick by the stance that the best way to help the Chargers with having a fan base in SoCal is to keep the identity. Maybe the Chargers could be LA and south and the Raiders could be LA and north (assuming those are the two teams...)

My problem with keeping the name is that San Diegans will disown the Chargers if they move and keep the name. Who are San Diegans supposed to root for if the Chargers leave and keep the name?

I was suggesting that San Diegans will be less likely to disown the Chargers if they keep the name. They are not moving that far away and will remain the weekly TV attraction. I am not really sure whether that's true or not, but I tend to doubt changing names will actually have them "disown" the team less. So the only negative to keeping the name is future consideration of a future San Diego franchise, which may or may not every exist.

But still, there are those in SD who consider LA a regional rival.

Yeah that's pretty much every sports fan in San Diego. Doesn't matter what name the franchise currently known as the San Diego Chargers takes... they'll not be keeping most of their current fans if they move north. San Diegans who still want to watch football will likely either find new teams to root for, drop the NFL as a thing they watch entirely, or simply root for whomever is playing the Chargers in a particular week.

Don't the Lakers have a huge following in SD?

[colortv]

Report: NFL's relocation fee for move to LA will likely be $500M-$600M

http://mweb.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25377208/report-nfl-likely-to-charge-500m-600m-relocation-fee-for-move-to-la

[Gothamite]

If those are the names behind Inglewood then that's what's getting done. Those are the big hitters in terms of franchise value. Again - what if he just gives the other owners the finger and starts building anyway and signs a temp lease in LA for next year? Hasn't it been proven that they can't stop him? Sure the league wouldn't give them a SB and other perks if he moves against their wishes, but it still seems the juice is worth the squeeze.

What does it matter if an owner is worth $5 million or $5 billion if each owner's vote only counts as 1?

Of course it does. Some owners are able to sway the votes of others, by open persuasion, by virtue of their standing in the league or by their ability to help negotiate a deal to bring reluctant or recalcitrant voters in line. Just like in Congress, the people on your side mean everything.

That being said, if the reports are true there are some heavy hitters backing each plan. I don't see a clear favorite there.

[HedleyLamarr]

If those are the names behind Inglewood then that's what's getting done. Those are the big hitters in terms of franchise value. Again - what if he just gives the other owners the finger and starts building anyway and signs a temp lease in LA for next year? Hasn't it been proven that they can't stop him? Sure the league wouldn't give them a SB and other perks if he moves against their wishes, but it still seems the juice is worth the squeeze.

What does it matter if an owner is worth $5 million or $5 billion if each owner's vote only counts as 1?

Of course it does. Some owners are able to sway the votes of others, by open persuasion, by virtue of their standing in the league or by their ability to help negotiate a deal to bring reluctant or recalcitrant voters in line. Just like in Congress, the people on your side mean everything.

That being said, if the reports are true there are some heavy hitters backing each plan. I don't see a clear favorite there.

Well, the NFL is going to control the flow of the news when it comes to relocation, especially during the season. It's in their best interests to make sure there's no clear-cut leader or any sort of definitive "This team is moving." news to come out.

Now, once the Chargers and Rams have played out their home schedules and get eliminated from playoff contention, that's when we'll start to hear some news about a team (or teams) relocating. As long as they have home games to play, the NFL doesn't want any news that may affect fans in San Diego and St. Louis (and Oakland) from purchasing tickets.

[Mac the Knife]

Report: NFL's relocation fee for move to LA will likely be $500M-$600M

http://mweb.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25377208/report-nfl-likely-to-charge-500m-600m-relocation-fee-for-move-to-la

If accurate, that's a nice $30M check to each of 30 NFL owners should they allow two teams to relocate. It also will take the Raiders out of the running.