duma

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Lights Out said:

Not happening as long as the Spanos family owns the team.

No way that Spanos ever moves the team back to San Diego, or that San Diego would even want Spanos back, for that matter. But if the LA Chargers are the dumpster fire we all expect them to be in a few years, I'd bet the NFL will do everything in its power to force Spanos out. They'd have to move mountains to outright force him to sell, but I'm sure Goodell (with the support of other owners) will exert as much pressure as possible to get Spanos to sell.

 

How successful that would be remains to be seen, but if Spanos is losing money hand over fist in LA, that might force his hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, kroywen said:

No way that Spanos ever moves the team back to San Diego, or that San Diego would even want Spanos back, for that matter. But if the LA Chargers are the dumpster fire we all expect them to be in a few years, I'd bet the NFL will do everything in its power to force Spanos out. They'd have to move mountains to outright force him to sell, but I'm sure Goodell (with the support of other owners) will exert as much pressure as possible to get Spanos to sell.

 

How successful that would be remains to be seen, but if Spanos is losing money hand over fist in LA, that might force his hand.

IIRC league bylaws state he can't sell the team for 10-15 years after moving. Those are in place to stop an owner from moving a team to a more profitable market and then turning around and making a huge profit.

Of course the NFL is a private organisation, so they can just wave those whenever they feel like it. I could see them "letting" Dean cash out early if it means a more San Diego-friendly owner can come in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

IIRC league bylaws state he can't sell the team for 10-15 years after moving. Those are in place to stop an owner from moving a team to a more profitable market and then turning around and making a huge profit.

Of course the NFL is a private organisation, so they can just wave those whenever they feel like it. I could see them "letting" Dean cash out early if it means a more San Diego-friendly owner can come in.

Even if f there was no clearly stated bylaw regarding the Spanos family sellng the franchise, it would be silly to not just buy a franchise not, but to also pay the vig in a franchise relocation fee. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the relocation fee is the key to what happens with the Chargers. As it stands now (IIRC the Chargers have 10 years to pay $650M), every NFL owner will pocket about $2M per year from the Chargers. That's a pretty powerful motivation to keep the team in LA. A new owner who wanted to take the team back to SD would have to do some combination of paying inflated LA team price, take on the relocation fee even after unrelocating, and/or convince the NFL to forgo the part of the relocation fee that hadn't been payed yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

convince the NFL to forgo the part of the relocation fee that hadn't been payed yet.

 

This is probably what ends up happening. Also, if Spanos gets shanghaied into selling the team to undo the relocation, the new owner probably wouldn't be made to pay a Los Angeles price for what's meant to be a San Diego team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a million ways the league could fix this (if they really wanted to - which they don't.)

 

Every scenario would involve him either selling either voluntarily or reluctantly.

 

Example: the league could estimate the market value of the team towards the end in SD.  Let's just say that it could have sold for $900 M last year.  It could then broker a sale (for a price between a fair SD price ($900 M) and an inflated LA price ($1.8B), so like 1.4B, pay Dean off, then apply the extra 500M towards the lost relo fee.)

 

Obviously you'd need to find a buyer willing to pay a premium for a team that would be located in SD, but if SD is willing to play ball with new stadium funds, that may make finding a buyer much easier.

 

Of course I wish there was a way to do it that didn't involve a city funding much of anything, but that's just not how it works.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

There's a million ways the league could fix this (if they really wanted to - which they don't.)

 

Every scenario would involve him either selling either voluntarily or reluctantly.

 

Example: the league could estimate the market value of the team towards the end in SD.  Let's just say that it could have sold for $900 M last year.  It could then broker a sale (for a price between a fair SD price ($900 M) and an inflated LA price ($1.8B), so like 1.4B, pay Dean off, then apply the extra 500M towards the lost relo fee.)

 

Obviously you'd need to find a buyer willing to pay a premium for a team that would be located in SD, but if SD is willing to play ball with new stadium funds, that may make finding a buyer much easier.

 

Of course I wish there was a way to do it that didn't involve a city funding much of anything, but that's just not how it works.

 

Cannot and should not work that way. 

 

If any NFL franchise was put up for auction, it would be for much more than you think.

 

Let the market decide and let the public if they want to build a venue ten games plua a Supercross, Monster Jam, and HS playoff games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dfwabel said:

Cannot and should not work that way. 

 

If any NFL franchise was put up for auction, it would be for much more than you think.

 

Let the market decide and let the public if they want to build a venue ten games plua a Supercross, Monster Jam, and HS playoff games.

 

The market would decide. But the market wouldn't be bidding on a LA team, it'd be bidding on one with the provision that it moves to SD. 

 

The market would pay pay more than what the team was last valued in sd, because as you accurately said, the market would pay more than I (or most ppl) think (but still not LA prices in this case). 

 

The league, who brokered the sale (in this scenario) would offer Spanos either the selling price - relo fee, or if the selling price wasn't what they thought, He'd get the estimated value of the team before the move, and the league would keep the difference and eat some of the relo fee. 

 

They couldnt force him him to do it tho, since he didn't  violate any rules, but his other option is to wait 15 years and possibly live with the embarrassment of running a crummy franchise. 

 

Or, someone could get a hidden camera and get him to say the N word a hundred times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

The market would decide. But the market wouldn't be bidding on a LA team, it'd be bidding on one with the provision that it moves to SD. 

 

The market would pay pay more than what the team was last valued in sd, because as you accurately said, the market would pay more than I (or most ppl) think (but still not LA prices in this case). 

 

The league, who brokered the sale (in this scenario) would offer Spanos either the selling price - relo fee, or if the selling price wasn't what they thought, He'd get the estimated value of the team before the move, and the league would keep the difference and eat some of the relo fee. 

 

They couldnt force him him to do it tho, since he didn't  violate any rules, but his other option is to wait 15 years and possibly live with the embarrassment of running a crummy franchise. 

 

Or, someone could get a hidden camera and get him to say the N word a hundred times. 

NBA didnt do that with the Clippers.  The market mattered.  The league cannot set the selling price as it f%cks up the equity of  the other 31 framchises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not what I'm saying, I'm just doing a poor job of wording my thoughts right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I get what you mean.  

 

If bidders know that moving to SD is part of the deal, that will be reflected in the eventual price.  We've seen leagues place conditions on sales before - the Astros moved to the AL, and the MetroStars gave up their exclusive rights to the New York market as part of the sale to Red Bull.  In both those cases the conditions were reflected in the price paid by the new owners. 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the only other thing is that in my scenario, since the league is brokering the deal, and is owed $600M (or whatever) in relo money, one of the conditions would be that they'd give Spanos a fixed amount based on an estimate of franchise value had it stayed in SD, and then keep the rest for "administrative expenses" - basically since the other teams had planned to collect some of that relo money, and now there's no relo (more accurately it'd be an un-relo) they should still get something for their troubles, since they've likely already added that money to their budgets.

 

I think this is what was causing the confusion, since in this "fantasy", Spanos isn't profiting from the bidding, which admittedly may not be legal.  

 

For it to work legally, he'd probably have to sell the team to the league, who would then take bids and sell it.  That extra step just complicates it more. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

For it to work legally, he'd probably have to sell the team to the league, who would then take bids and sell it.  That extra step just complicates it more. 

 

 

 

Pretty much what happened with the NBA, George Shinn, and the New Orleans Hornets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, B-Rich said:

Pretty much what happened with the NBA, George Shinn, and the New Orleans Hornets.

Technically, the league controls the franchise. The 'business' is a separate entity who holds the rights to a franchise. Franchises can be revoked. If the NFL really wants to 'protect the shield', stopping an owner from ruining the league's reputation by moving them in such a craptastic manner that is turning off fans all across the country for the greedy act it is, could be a reason to 'protect the shield'.

 

If a McDonald's franchisee is caught dealing heroin out of the back room, it probably won't stay a McDonald's for long. It no longer meets their standards and they can revoke it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sykotyk said:

Technically, the league controls the franchise. The 'business' is a separate entity who holds the rights to a franchise. Franchises can be revoked. If the NFL really wants to 'protect the shield', stopping an owner from ruining the league's reputation by moving them in such a craptastic manner that is turning off fans all across the country for the greedy act it is, could be a reason to 'protect the shield'.

 

If a McDonald's franchisee is caught dealing heroin out of the back room, it probably won't stay a McDonald's for long. It no longer meets their standards and they can revoke it.

 

Exactly.  This is an NFL franchise:

 

170.jpg

 

The team as a business entity holds this certificate, which represents the franchise itself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was already mentioned in the 2017 soccer thread, but there is a plan to develop the Qualcomm Stadium site entirely with private money.  A partnership between a prospective MLS ownership group and San Diego State University, which would leave space for a football stadium if the Chargers (or any other team) considered moving back to San Diego.

 

 

Quote

 

FS Investors, which has the exclusive right to apply for a Major League Soccer franchise, is still working out the details, but in briefings shared with various media outlets and city officials, the company said it proposes to: 

 

  • Buy the 166-acre site from the city at fair market value, as determined by a third-party. The site has been estimated at about $50 million in its present, unimproved condition;
  • Demolish 50-year-old Qualcomm Stadium, relieving the city of the annual upkeep of about $12 million and about $100 million in deferred maintenance costs. The city still owes about $28 million on outstanding bonds; 
  • Set aside enough land for an NFL stadium to be built in the next five years if another city’s team wants to relocate and replace the Chargers, assuming the Chargers do not change their minds and want to move back;
  • Pay the projected cost, previously estimated at about $50 million, for a 55-acre San Diego River Park on the south side of the property;
  • Cover the costs of offsite traffic improvements associated with the development, as determined in an environmental analysis to accompany the citizens initiative, as  well as onsite infrastructure site development costs with details to be laid out in coming weeks; and,
  • Invite other developers to build housing, primarily aimed at SDSU students, office space for SDSU and other tenants,  and related commercial and entertainment uses on the remainder of the property — all part of a transit-oriented development to help ease San Diego’s housing shortage and take advantage of the existing San Diego Trolley line and a proposed line along Interstate15. 

 

 

Looks like a much better deal than anything Dean ever considered offering.

Edited by Gothamite
wrote "public money" obviously meant "private"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

This was already mentioned in the 2017 soccer thread, but there is a plan to develop the Qualcomm Stadium site entirely with public money.  A partnership between a prospective MLS ownership group and San Diego State University, which would leave space for a football stadium if the Chargers (or any other team) considered moving back to San Diego.

 

 

 

Looks like a much better deal than anything Dean ever considered offering.

 

I think you meant entirely with private money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

I think you meant entirely with private money.

 

Whoops - thanks for the correction!  Corrected the original post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.