NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[The_Admiral]

LOS ANGELES FOOTBALL: THE MUSTACHE SHOWDOWN

[DarkJourney]

LOS ANGELES FOOTBALL: THE MUSTACHE SHOWDOWN

Who has the more bad ass pinstripe suit

[bosrs1]

Howard Schultz said Clay Bennett was committed to Seattle at his sale press conference. hahaha!

Which isn't shocking. What are they supposed to say? Yeah I'm moving your team, but not for a few years so I still want you to buy tickets?

[The_Admiral]

Yeah exactly. Though I wish he would come out and say just that, if only to put some egg on the faces of the schmucks who are like "don't worry, guys, he's in the shipping industry and Jacksonville is a port city, we've got this."

[Gothamite]

I'm more worried about the schmucks on the Jaguars' and newspaper forums posting racist and anti-Islamic drivel about their new owner.

[Mac the Knife]

Drives the NFL owners crazy as well. That's why you will never see a publically owned team again in major pro sports in the United States.

Except that there have been several others (Florida Panthers, Cleveland Indians within the past 20 years)... and eventually, there will be more. The reason? Money.

The NFL will be the first in fact, and here's why: franchise acquisition costs are reaching such levels that it's virtually impossible for someone to acquire a team on their own, or with a relatively small (i.e., 50 or less) group of limited partners. It'll take some further inflation (to $2-3 billion per franchise) in sale prices, but eventually it will occur. The NFL has in their history amended their ownership requirements to reflect this several times (most recently a few years ago to facilitate the Rooney family and its in-fighting), and ultimately it'll have no choice but to allow public companies (which under IRS guidelines comprise 50 or more partners/shareholders) to get involved.

[Gothamite]

Okay, the Jacksonville paper has an article up now which is seemingly intended to reassure Jacksonvillians that the Jags are tied by the lease, but his numbers make me even more convinced that they're on their way out of town. 

Consider this. We've been saying that the Jags need to lose money three years in a row in order to break the lease with lessened penalties. But here's what he says:

The team could avoid paying a lot of those penalties ? which could total more than $100 million ? if it lost money one year and was below the NFL?s revenue average the following two years.

Emphasis mine, natch.   But that's a pretty big distinction. One of the ways in which teams control their own revenue is via ticket sales. Having to give away tens of thousands of tickets (or purchase the tickets themselves) will make it harder to stay in the top 1/2 of revenues. 

He also lays out the penalties this way:

The Jaguars? lease with the city requires penalty payments if they leave before it ends in 19 years:

Rent: They?d have to pay through the 2029-30 season. Documents show they have about $100 million left as of this year.

Ticket surcharge fees: $750,000 a year through 2029-30

Parking fees: $200,000 a year through 2029-30

So that's $100 million in rent, and under $19 million in assorted fees. That $119 million goes down every year, and if as noted above the Jags can show themselves to be in the bottom half of revenues they'll only owe 40% of that.  

40% is less than $50 million, and all of a sudden that airtight lease doesn't seem like such a hurdle...

[illwauk]

I'm more worried about the schmucks on the Jaguars' and newspaper forums posting racist and anti-Islamic drivel about their new owner.

Any story about someone whose not a white heterosexual christian male at a newspaper site will attract the dregs of society and all of their racist, homophobic, anti-semetic, Islamophobic, misogynistic (whatever applies) thoughts that they're too scared to air anywhere but in the anonymity of cyberspace.

[Gothamite]

True, but not every newspaper will allow those comments to remain.

[bosrs1]

Well looks like you can take the Niners out of any discussion about moving to LA. They have secured all 850 million dollars they needed on top of the money they already had to build their new stadium in Santa Clara. This basically completes the funding process which was really all they were waiting on to start construction. Looks like they're staying indefinitely in the Bay Area.

http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfootball/ci_19460039

On the flip side however, the Niners ability to secure all the funding sans the inclusion of the Raiders may have just dealt a serious blow too the Raiders future in the Bay Area. They now have no leverage should they choose to deal with the Niners on renting in Santa Clara. And they have no ability to build their own stadium in Oakland. Which puts a possible LA move directly in the "more appealing" column.

[Viper]

I was wondering how long it would take someone to post that.

Actually I beat goalieboy82 to it by one day.

[Mac the Knife]

Okay, the Jacksonville paper has an article up now which is seemingly intended to reassure Jacksonvillians that the Jags are tied by the lease, but his numbers make me even more convinced that they're on their way out of town. 

Consider this. We've been saying that the Jags need to lose money three years in a row in order to break the lease with lessened penalties. But here's what he says:

The team could avoid paying a lot of those penalties ? which could total more than $100 million ? if it lost money one year and was below the NFL?s revenue average the following two years.

Emphasis mine, natch.   But that's a pretty big distinction. One of the ways in which teams control their own revenue is via ticket sales. Having to give away tens of thousands of tickets (or purchase the tickets themselves) will make it harder to stay in the top 1/2 of revenues. 

He also lays out the penalties this way:

The Jaguars? lease with the city requires penalty payments if they leave before it ends in 19 years:

Rent: They?d have to pay through the 2029-30 season. Documents show they have about $100 million left as of this year.

Ticket surcharge fees: $750,000 a year through 2029-30

Parking fees: $200,000 a year through 2029-30

So that's $100 million in rent, and under $19 million in assorted fees. That $119 million goes down every year, and if as noted above the Jags can show themselves to be in the bottom half of revenues they'll only owe 40% of that.  

40% is less than $50 million, and all of a sudden that airtight lease doesn't seem like such a hurdle...

Exactly. Anyone who looks at the Jaguars sale and thinks the team is more secure from moving vans in its future is kind of delusional. Khan didn't buy this team just to be an NFL owner. He didn't buy this team because he's enamored with Jacksonville, either. He's also not stupid. He can just as easily own a team in Los Angeles or St. Louis as Jacksonville, depending on how things with the Rams sort out - and I'll bet that thought has occurred to him as well.

[Mac the Knife]

Well looks like you can take the Niners out of any discussion about moving to LA. They have secured all 850 million dollars they needed on top of the money they already had to build their new stadium in Santa Clara. This basically completes the funding process which was really all they were waiting on to start construction. Looks like they're staying indefinitely in the Bay Area.

http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfootball/ci_19460039

On the flip side however, the Niners ability to secure all the funding sans the inclusion of the Raiders may have just dealt a serious blow too the Raiders future in the Bay Area. They now have no leverage should they choose to deal with the Niners on renting in Santa Clara. And they have no ability to build their own stadium in Oakland. Which puts a possible LA move directly in the "more appealing" column.

The Raiders never made a serious attempt with regard to the Santa Clara site, in part due to Al Davis' ornery nature and in part because there are other local options available. IMHO, there's no way that even with Al gone, the NFL's owners allow a move back to Los Angeles for the silver and black.

Here's a wild thought: what about the Candlestick site? Once the 49'ers go to Santa Clara, who's to stop the Raiders (who share the territory with the 49'ers right now anyway, so it'd be a move the NFL couldn't stop) from razing "Windlestick" and building a new facility there? Bay Area Raiders?

[bosrs1]

Well looks like you can take the Niners out of any discussion about moving to LA. They have secured all 850 million dollars they needed on top of the money they already had to build their new stadium in Santa Clara. This basically completes the funding process which was really all they were waiting on to start construction. Looks like they're staying indefinitely in the Bay Area.

http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfootball/ci_19460039

On the flip side however, the Niners ability to secure all the funding sans the inclusion of the Raiders may have just dealt a serious blow too the Raiders future in the Bay Area. They now have no leverage should they choose to deal with the Niners on renting in Santa Clara. And they have no ability to build their own stadium in Oakland. Which puts a possible LA move directly in the "more appealing" column.

The Raiders never made a serious attempt with regard to the Santa Clara site, in part due to Al Davis' ornery nature and in part because there are other local options available. IMHO, there's no way that even with Al gone, the NFL's owners allow a move back to Los Angeles for the silver and black.

Here's a wild thought: what about the Candlestick site? Once the 49'ers go to Santa Clara, who's to stop the Raiders (who share the territory with the 49'ers right now anyway, so it'd be a move the NFL couldn't stop) from razing "Windlestick" and building a new facility there? Bay Area Raiders?

Interesting thought but there's a problem... who pays for it? The problem the Niners ran into in SF was the lack of funding available up there and the political hoops that city requires people to go through. The Raiders would run into the same issue. And they also have their own issues in Oakland.

[ninersdd]

The Raiders in SF would be weird. The fan bases don't exactly like each other. The problem with the Candlestick/Hunters Point area is that I believe that is the most dangerous part of SF, so you wonder about the long term situation of that area with regard to if Candlestick gets torn down.

[The_Admiral]

Raiders aren't moving to Los Angeles. LA is the sweetest plum this league has had in years. The old boys aren't going to give it to the Davislings. They'll move in with the 49ers, stay in the Oakland Coliseum forever, or Lake County Fielders it up with some big temporary structure that appears only for gamedays, like some sort of cholo Brigadoon.

[CubsFanBudMan]

FWIW, Charley Casserly just said on the CBS pregame in response to a Jaguars question that the lease would be what keeps the team in Jacksonville. He said he talked to an NFL source that said the league feels that the Chargers, Raiders and Rams leases are the easiest to get out of. (I found the wording and the omission of the Vikings strange, considering that some leases expire.) He also said the league believes it will take two teams for the economics of the L.A. stadium to work.

[Gothamite]

That doesn't surprise me - why admit the Jacksonville problems and further encourage the fans to stay away?

some big temporary structure that appears only for gamedays, like some sort of cholo Brigadoon.

you just won the thread.

[bosrs1]

FWIW, Charley Casserly just said on the CBS pregame in response to a Jaguars question that the lease would be what keeps the team in Jacksonville. He said he talked to an NFL source that said the league feels that the Chargers, Raiders and Rams leases are the easiest to get out of. (I found the wording and the omission of the Vikings strange, considering that some leases expire.) He also said the league believes it will take two teams for the economics of the L.A. stadium to work.

Now that the Raiders aren't a necessity in Santa Clara watch it be the Rams and Raiders. One NFC, One AFC, both former LA teams (one their long time NFL team), both with sizeable fan bases in LA (Raiders in particular), both with easy to break/expiring leases, both with owners willing to make some concessions to AEG or Roski (Rams more than the Raiders here, but then they only need one. The second team can be a simple renter), and both have expressed interest in the LA stadium at some point.

The Chargers too share some of the traits with the other two but they don't have the owner willing to make concessions and much of any fan base in LA.

[DaytonBlue]

Has any thought been given in Oakland to tearing down the old half of the Coliseum if the A's ever leave, build a new half similar to Mt. Davis, and voila, brand-new half a stadium.

On Andrew Clem's excellent site, he has diagrams for this possibility, but I wasn't sure if this was ever seriously talked about.

Of course, the A's have to leave first.