NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[colortv]

How many NFL teams are within 200 miles of St. Louis? I keep getting the impression theres a few.

[The_Admiral]

None within 200, but 300 gets you Kansas City, Chicago, Indianapolis, Nashville, and misses Cincinnati proper by a hair. The NFL doesn't need St. Louis in the condition it's in.

[The_Admiral]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/kroenke-blasts-st-louis-in-nfl-relocation-proposal/article_cc72f61a-0c35-53bd-8890-0efde6402509.html

The Rams are the right team to fill the stadium, the document says, with the “longest and strongest” connection to L.A. fans.

The document continued, adding that the Rams are the team most prepared to get the friction on. The Raiders also released a statement professing a desire to face Los Angeles while leaving Oakland behind.

[The_Admiral]

I wanna get you home, and

unh, double up, unh! unh!

[FiddySicks]

May sit out this thread for a while. Not the doing of any of you. But reading through this application from Kroenke makes it hard to offer anything but emotion.

I don't care about the NFL or football (not in positive ways anyways) anymore. In fact, I'd rather my city be rid of them. But I care about St. Louis so damned much, and I can't read page after page of attack on my city—by a petulant, conniving billionaire no less—and keep my responses rational.

I may end back here tomorrow morning, who knows. But right now I've gotta breathe. And by breathe, I mean tweet.

This is my favorite post here in the longest time. It's like the Rams version of the Factory of Sadness video.

[FDW]

I think it's currently 60/40 St. Louis is the city that keeps it's team.

Whether it's desirable or not, St. Louis is the only city with an actionable plan on the table. The NFL doesn't have to accept that plan (and they in fact can't make the Rams accept it) to acknowledge that and say it's worth continuing to work on.

Dean Spanos also has many more owners on his side and has convinced many of them he has a more compelling reason to move.

At the same time, though, Kroenke is rich as balls and usually gets what he wants. Most of the other richest owners are on his side even though they're fewer in number. It wouldn't shock me to see them find a way to turn the tables.

So that's my take: 60/40 that the Rams stay in St. Louis and the Raiders and Chargers relocate to LA (Carson). Not exactly a prediction with confidence, though.

I've been predicting with confidence that it would be Rams/Chargers in LA for at least five years, and it's looking like that is about to come true.

[Mac the Knife]

Excuse my ignorance but I assume there are going to be 3 separate votes for the 3 teams. So, hypothetically, all 3 teams could be approved to be in L.A. next year?

Yes. Each application is a separate action, and as such they're voted on individually.

I kinda half expect all three teams to get rejected and we end up back at square one because, "We need to give it more time. $$$$$." or whatever.

They can't do that this time - it'd put at least the Chargers and Rams into a "lame duck" situation akin to the Oilers last season in Houston. They won't let that happen.

If we're doing predictions, then I think it'll be the Rams and Chargers in LA, playing in the Inglewood stadium with the NFL helping the Raiders build a stadium in Oakland.

I've been saying this (save the Raiders part) for quite some time.

My question is that if two teams are approved to relocate, where's the second team going to play? The Coliseum will only allow one team to play there.

That's an interesting question. The Rose Bowl has said they won't be part of this, and Anaheim Stadium reportedly has been reconfigured in a fashion that football can't be played there anymore. Dodger Stadium?

[Gothamite]

May sit out this thread for a while. Not the doing of any of you. But reading through this application from Kroenke makes it hard to offer anything but emotion.

Totally respect that.

Divorces are hard. Even if you've come to hate each other.

Worth remembering, all of us, that this process will hurt at least one group of fans no matter how it is resolved. Which is why relocations suck.

[Guy with Machete]

Quick question...what are the odds of each team actually moving to LA? I mean 3 teams sounds like complete overkill.

[Gothamite]

Well, any answer you get to that question will be nothing more than opinion. There's not enough information to form a really sound foundation.

That being said, I'd personally put the Rams at 95%. Nothing's guaranteed, but Kroenke doesn't believe in the market, has the money and the right to move. The NFL may fight him, but he has the resources to do what he wants.

The Chargers seem to me 75%, and that's as a tenant in Inglewood. Take that out of the equation and they're 50/50 at best. Their stadium deal really needs the Raiders to work, and...

The Raiders are maybe 50/50. They don't have the money to move on their own, and are destined to partner with another team if at all.

Hasten to add this isn't what I want to see happen, but the odds as I see them.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

In an ideal world, I'd like to see the Rams back in L.A. and the Raiders and Chargers stay. The thing is, we all know at some point, the NFL will return to San Diego. It may not be for 15-20 years, but it will come back. Does the Chargers name stay or go?

As far as the Rams, it's where they came from and St. Louis just doesn't seem to care about them. Almost like they were an afterthought regardless of being one of the most dominant teams in football for a good portion of 2000-10.

[Telemundo219]

In an ideal world, I'd like to see the Rams back in L.A. and the Raiders and Chargers stay. The thing is, we all know at some point, the NFL will return to San Diego. It may not be for 15-20 years, but it will come back. Does the Chargers name stay or go?

As far as the Rams, it's where they came from and St. Louis just doesn't seem to care about them. Almost like they were an afterthought regardless of being one of the most dominant teams in football for a good portion of 2000-10.

100% agree. 50 years in one city says something if not a lot. The Rams still have fans there in LA and as the proposal made clear, the Rams (Kroneke) seems to be completely detached to St. Louis.

The NFL better not fudge this up. Why the Chargers even being considered to move, I don't know. If anyone else makes sense it's the Raiders. This is what happens when $$$ trump history/tradition.

Btw, why does Jacksonville have a team? (#JaguarstoSTL). Kinda wish the Cardinals went back to STL and the Jags to Arizona.

[TheOldRoman]

Btw, why does Jacksonville have a team? (#JaguarstoSTL). Kinda wish the Cardinals went back to STL and the Jags to Arizona.

That kinda talk'll get you slapped around these parts.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

Except the league has already talked about possibly investing in the Coliseum City project or something like it, as recently as a couple weeks ago.

They don't seem set on forcing them to Santa Clara. Which, frankly, would be a terrible idea.

Two teams representing two different cities playing in a completely different city.

[Gothamite]

In an ideal world, I'd like to see the Rams back in L.A. and the Raiders and Chargers stay. The thing is, we all know at some point, the NFL will return to San Diego. It may not be for 15-20 years, but it will come back. Does the Chargers name stay or go?

[Crash]

Except the league has already talked about possibly investing in the Coliseum City project or something like it, as recently as a couple weeks ago.

They don't seem set on forcing them to Santa Clara. Which, frankly, would be a terrible idea.

Two teams representing two different cities playing in a completely different city.

To a completely empty stadium.

[dfwabel]

Excuse my ignorance but I assume there are going to be 3 separate votes for the 3 teams. So, hypothetically, all 3 teams could be approved to be in L.A. next year?

Yes. Each application is a separate action, and as such they're voted on individually.

I kinda half expect all three teams to get rejected and we end up back at square one because, "We need to give it more time. $$$$$." or whatever.

They can't do that this time - it'd put at least the Chargers and Rams into a "lame duck" situation akin to the Oilers last season in Houston. They won't let that happen.

If we're doing predictions, then I think it'll be the Rams and Chargers in LA, playing in the Inglewood stadium with the NFL helping the Raiders build a stadium in Oakland.

I've been saying this (save the Raiders part) for quite some time.

My question is that if two teams are approved to relocate, where's the second team going to play? The Coliseum will only allow one team to play there.

That's an interesting question. The Rose Bowl has said they won't be part of this, and Anaheim Stadium reportedly has been reconfigured in a fashion that football can't be played there anymore. Dodger Stadium?

The Dodgers only have one weekend home series after Labor Day. They seem to be open to host a team.

[teddthebucfan]

I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe. Offenses frozen in the wind on the foot of Ohio. I watched bolo ties glitter in the dark in the press conference room.

All those moments will be lost... in time... like... bolts... in the rain.

Time... to die.

[CS85]

Stan's officially balls deep.

[bosrs1]

Except the league has already talked about possibly investing in the Coliseum City project or something like it, as recently as a couple weeks ago.

They don't seem set on forcing them to Santa Clara. Which, frankly, would be a terrible idea.

That was debunked hours after it broke. The league isn't going to provide the Raiders with financial assistance with no assistance from the city. It would set a terrible precedent. The only public statement the league has made is that they feel Levis would work well for the Raiders.