NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[The_Admiral]

It also will take the Raiders out of the running.

[TheOldRoman]

Dotel looks a little too, um, excited there.

And judging by the look on his face, I'm guessing getting the save made him prejack.

[STL FANATIC]

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.

Not sure the latter part is true.

1. Isn't this likely to come out of revenue rather than being an upfront cash payment?

2. Isn't Davis reportedly willing to sell a stake in the team upon a move to LA? (And doesn't Iger now own an option to do so?)

3. Davis has stated that he has $300 million to put towards a stadium in Oakland. Wouldn't he likely be able to leverage that to cover this fee?

[Gothamite]

1. Maybe. But even then, the term matters. He'll have an easier time paying it off over 20 years than 5. Five might not even be possible for him; how much revenue can he afford to give up every season?

2. Yes and yes, but to get anywhere near that amount of cash would mean selling off more stock than he can afford to lose. He'd have to convince one of his minority owners to sell right before the value goes thorough the roof. And even then, Davis needs to maintain voting control over some of the minority shareholders' stock, and it seems doubtful Iger is willing to pay to be a passenger. Iger's right to purchase is likely well below the level to make a dent in that relocation fee.

3. Not if he needs it to make his part of the stadium payments.

[STL FANATIC]

As you may know from the NFL anti-team thread, I now actively oppose the Rams remaining in St. Louis. Nonetheless, an update.

The Rams have committed to hosting a game in London next year. As with the last time the Rams did this, I'm 90% sure that if the remain in St. Louis in 2016 they will have to negotiate this into their yearly lease as the current one (that would presumably just carry over otherwise) does not give them this right.

[Gothamite]

I do believe you're right.

And since the league obviously would have had to approve it, that means they either think Kroenke will be able to negotiate that into his year-to-year lease, or they don't believe the Rams will be playing in the Dome next season.

[STL FANATIC]

Maybe. They approved it last time around and there was no agreement. The Rams and the CVC came to terms well after the Rams announced their game (and actually at the time they had announced 3 years worth of games).

As you know, both the NFL and Kroenke have little regard for others and will do what they believe they can get away with. Not necessarily what they have a clear right to do.

With that said, I would suppose that in this case the year-to-year lease can be tweaked in each year prior to sign-off.

I've seen some speculate that this is a sign that either no teams are likely to move this year or that at least the Rams won't. The theory is why would you give up one of your home games if you're trying to build excitement in LA?

I don't see that as a big deal though. This isn't the grand opening of the new stadium. It would be a transitional year regardless. In some ways, it makes sense to limit supply to increase demand. So I doubt as if this is a sign of anything one way or the other.

[The_Admiral]

Helps stay out of USC's way.

[STL FANATIC]

The Regional Stadium Authority (the one that actually runs the Dome—I said CVC earlier because I mix all these stupid agencies up) issued the following statement. They're not cutting the Rams any slack yet.

We recently became aware that the NFL has selected the Rams to play in London during the 2016 football season, and have designated them the ‘home’ team. The Rams are on a year-to year lease and have until Jan. 28, 2016 to inform us if they will play the 2016 season at the Edward Jones Dome. We have had no formal discussions with the Rams about their 2016 intentions or a London game in 2016, but if they do play in the Dome in 2016, the terms of the lease remain in effect and provides that all Rams NFL home games (other than preseason) will be played at the Facilities.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog/2015/11/rams-to-play-game-in-london-next-year.html

The stadium task force played nicer, but subtly nudged the Rams to actually talk to them (which won't happen unless the NFL requires it). I do find the mere acknowledgment of the Rams possibly leaving St. Louis awkward sounding for something that should have gone through a PR person.

The Rams playing a home game in London next season is irrelevant if the team leaves St. Louis. However, we are confident the Rams will continue to call St. Louis their home. Our work remains focused on the Rams playing for 30 years in a new riverfront stadium in Downtown St. Louis, and not whether they play one home game a year from now in London. If the Rams proceed with us on the North Riverfront stadium and redevelopment project, we’re certain accommodations can be made for the Rams to play one game in London next season.

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/11/25/rams-will-play-a-home-game-in-london-in-2016-17-season/

[BBTV]

Or maybe the league feels that the London thing would get more hype if they sent a team from LA out there rather than just Jacksonvilles of the world.

As of now, the Rams opponent would be Philadelphia (based on standings.) I would wager that a LA vs Philadelphia game would garner more interest in London than Jacksonville vs... St. Louis?

[The_Admiral]

Now that you're actively against the Rams staying, it's time to take the goat head out of your avatar. Or you can just sloppily X it out in MS Paint. Actually, that'd be funnier. Do that.

[Gothamite]

Maybe. They approved it last time around and there was no agreement. The Rams and the CVC came to terms well after the Rams announced their game (and actually at the time they had announced 3 years worth of games).

I thought it was clear at the time that they overlooked the provision in the lease, and didn't realize they couldn't do it. Which is why they pulled the plug so quickly.

And now, if they were going to renegotiate the lease, wouldn't they do it before making the announcement?

[Gothamite]

The Regional Stadium Authority (the one that actually runs the DomeI said CVC earlier because I mix all these stupid agencies up) issued the following statement. They're not cutting the Rams any slack yet.

We recently became aware that the NFL has selected the Rams to play in London during the 2016 football season, and have designated them the home team. The Rams are on a year-to year lease and have until Jan. 28, 2016 to inform us if they will play the 2016 season at the Edward Jones Dome. We have had no formal discussions with the Rams about their 2016 intentions or a London game in 2016, but if they do play in the Dome in 2016, the terms of the lease remain in effect and provides that all Rams NFL home games (other than preseason) will be played at the Facilities.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog/2015/11/rams-to-play-game-in-london-next-year.html

Yeah, because Kroenke responds so well to empty threats.

If anything, this plays into his hands with the league. "See how unreasonable they are? Holding us hostage and not letting us pursue an obvious revenue stream without even a negotiation."

[DaytonBlue]

This 2016 London game doesn't change much imho. If there is another lame duck season in STL, that's one less home game they'll have to worry about.

And if they move to LA it's one fewer game at a temporary site.

And the CVC will end up letting them do it for the same reason that they don't try to make the Rams sign a 5-10 year lease on the Dome right now. If they push too hard Stan can just go and if he wants the NFL's consent the CVC playing hardball on one game will only give him more league support.

[Gothamite]

They've already started with the hardball. That seems telling.

[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.

Not sure the latter part is true.

1. Isn't this likely to come out of revenue rather than being an upfront cash payment?

2. Isn't Davis reportedly willing to sell a stake in the team upon a move to LA? (And doesn't Iger now own an option to do so?)

3. Davis has stated that he has $300 million to put towards a stadium in Oakland. Wouldn't he likely be able to leverage that to cover this fee?

1. Yes, but even so it likely puts the Raiders out of the running - remember, each team has not just a salary cap to keep under, but a salary floor as well - and the Raiders may not be capable of losing $60M/year in revenue for five years (the longest period of time over which a 'relocation fee' has been spread out to date) and still spend to the floor.
2. Davis is ultimately going to have to sell out, and frankly now would be the best time to do it, while there's still at least a chance of a Los Angeles relocation.
3. Having $300M is great, but it can only be put one place - a stadium. Apply it to a 'relocation fee' and you've nothing to build a top-flight facility in the 21st century NFL, which allegedly is the whole point of all this.

This 2016 London game doesn't change much imho. If there is another lame duck season in STL, that's one less home game they'll have to worry about.

And if they move to LA it's one fewer game at a temporary site.

And the CVC will end up letting them do it for the same reason that they don't try to make the Rams sign a 5-10 year lease on the Dome right now. If they push too hard Stan can just go and if he wants the NFL's consent the CVC playing hardball on one game will only give him more league support.

Does the St. Louis/Rams lease have a "must play" provision in it? If not, this is pointless posturing; and if so, a renewal for 2016 can be negotiated on 8 home dates rather than 9 easily enough. It's a non-issue either way.

[Gothamite]

Yes. The lease requires that the Rams play every home game in the Dome. That's why the Rams had to pull out of having London games before.

Since the Rams are already announcing that they won't honor that clause next year, they're either playing hardball with the CVC to kickstart re-negotiations or they don't intend to re-up that lease.

[bosrs1]

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

Not in my experience. They don't even sell the Lakers preseason game in SD particularly well.

[HedleyLamarr]

Dunno if using a preseason game is much of a trustworthy barometer. I know I wouldn't buy tickets for a game that doesn't count and very little chance I see a great athlete play much.

[bosrs1]

Dunno if using a preseason game is much of a trustworthy barometer. I know I wouldn't buy tickets for a game that doesn't count and very little chance I see a great athlete play much.

Well as I said in my experience few people in San Diego care about the Lakers. Or the NBA for that matter. But moving two teams away over the years will do that. Chargers will suffer the same fate as the Clippers, they'll become persona non grata...