Jump to content

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay


duma
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, DG_Now said:

I've never noticed city name on NFL uniforms that much (which seems kind of weird), but it seems to have been pretty lucky for the Rams and Chargers that they could pack up existing inventory no problem and start selling in their new location.

 

 

It's not really all that weird - unlike baseball jerseys with all that real estate on the front, football uniforms don't really lend themselves to having wordmarks.   Team aesthetics evolved to feature logos over words.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MadmanLA said:

 

The stadium site is within a 5-10 minute drive (maybe more with traffic) of McCarran Airport, just on the other side of I-15; the UNLV campus is just north of the airport.  Speaking of its location...just like with the Inglewood site, I wonder if the FAA will raise concerns about construction too.

There is no site yet, just three proposed sites. 

 

The Russell Road and Dean Martin Drive site, just west of Interstate 15 and the Mandalay Bay is the "premier site" according to the chair of the Clark County Commission. A site which he personally has concerns with. It's the site which Adelson preferred and which was purchased either by him or Davis, but needs an additional $899M in transportation infrastructure, not accounted for in the project.

 

LV Mayor Jane Goodman prefers the Cashman Center site due to the lack of $899M needed.

 

https://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2017/mar/25/traffic-study-points-to-downtown-football-over-rai/

 

As far as FAA issues, Southwest Airlines only had concerns with a possible stadium on what is called "Lot 42", which is a parcel of land east of the MGM Grand and closer to the Paradise Rd. border of UNLV and the "Bali Hi" site which is the corner of Russell Rd. and LV Blvd, which is even closer to McCarran.  The airline sent their concerns over "Lot 42" but no comment from the FAA since they turned down a 2013 stadium proposal there by Roski and UNLV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2017 at 6:51 AM, Gothamite said:

"Game Jersey" is Nike's name for their lowest-price replica.  Authentics are "Elite", the best replicas are "Limited", and the regular replicas are "Game".  

 

Interesting/bizarre that they're giving away Rivers jerseys, since that's the one I would expect them to sell the most of.  I do like that they're giving away the powder blue, though.  Really should be their primary color.

 

 

 

 

 

They're just doing all the can to ensure that the stadium isn't full of away fans. We'll see if it works. I still fully expect a black out during Raider week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, RichO said:

So where do teams threaten to move to now? San Antonio? Austin? St. Louis?

 

 

Here's the largest media markets without a team.  I'm assuming this roughly translates into metro size. 

 

We're really scraping the bottom of the barrell here.  Basically unless someone cons STL into building a stadium after losing the Rams, there's no really good options.  Teams could threaten  San Antonio, but I don't think it's really a threat.  Portland?  Doesn't seem like the kind of place that would drop a billion in public funds for SPORTS.  I don't think any of these are threats.

 

I really don't know too much about the appetite for football or economics of many of these areas, but I started to comment on a few then lost interest.  Regardless, here's the list.

  • 19 Orlando-Daytona Bch-Melbrn, FL
  • 20 Sacramnto-Stkton-Modesto, CA 
  • 21 St. Louis, MO not going to build a stadium.  unless...
  • 22 Portland, OR 
  • 24 Raleigh-Durham (Fayetvlle), NC transient population, lots of transplants with other allegiances
  • 28 San Diego, CA Not going to build a stadium, could be blocked by LA (oh sweet irony.)
  • 30 Hartford & New Haven, CT  Part of NE territory
  • 31 Kansas City, KS Thought this was part of the same media market as KCMO.  Either way not a candidate.
  • 32 Columbus, OH Too collegy
  • 33 Salt Lake City Too mormony
  • 36 San Antonio, TX Maybe, but no viable stadium, very small metro area (2.1M?), very spread out.
  • 37 Greenvll-Spart-Ashevll-And, NC 
  • 38 West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce, FL 
  • 39 Grand Rapids-Kalmzoo-B.Crk, MI 
  • 41 Oklahoma City 
  • 42 Birmingham (Ann and Tusc) 
  • 43 Harrisburg-Lncstr-Leb-York, PA Way too small, split between Eagles and Steelers
  • 44 Norfolk-Portsmth-Newpt Nws, VA
  • 45 Austin, TX Great city, too collegy when it comes to sports.
  • 46 Greensboro-H.Point-W.Salem, NC
  • 47 Albuquerque-Santa Fe, NM
  • 48 Louisville, KY
  • 49 Memphis, TN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

 

Here's the largest media markets without a team.  I'm assuming this roughly translates into metro size. 

 

We're really scraping the bottom of the barrell here.  Basically unless someone cons STL into building a stadium after losing the Rams, there's no really good options.  Teams could threaten  San Antonio, but I don't think it's really a threat.  Portland?  Doesn't seem like the kind of place that would drop a billion in public funds for SPORTS.  I don't think any of these are threats.

 

I really don't know too much about the appetite for football or economics of many of these areas, but I started to comment on a few then lost interest.  Regardless, here's the list.

  • 19 Orlando-Daytona Bch-Melbrn, FL
  • 20 Sacramnto-Stkton-Modesto, CA 
  • 21 St. Louis, MO not going to build a stadium.  unless...
  • 22 Portland, OR 
  • 24 Raleigh-Durham (Fayetvlle), NC transient population, lots of transplants with other allegiances
  • 28 San Diego, CA Not going to build a stadium, could be blocked by LA (oh sweet irony.)
  • 30 Hartford & New Haven, CT  Part of NE territory
  • 31 Kansas City, KS Thought this was part of the same media market as KCMO.  Either way not a candidate.
  • 32 Columbus, OH Too collegy
  • 33 Salt Lake City Too mormony
  • 36 San Antonio, TX Maybe, but no viable stadium, very small metro area (2.1M?), very spread out.
  • 37 Greenvll-Spart-Ashevll-And, NC 
  • 38 West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce, FL 
  • 39 Grand Rapids-Kalmzoo-B.Crk, MI 
  • 41 Oklahoma City 
  • 42 Birmingham (Ann and Tusc) 
  • 43 Harrisburg-Lncstr-Leb-York, PA Way too small, split between Eagles and Steelers
  • 44 Norfolk-Portsmth-Newpt Nws, VA
  • 45 Austin, TX Great city, too collegy when it comes to sports.
  • 46 Greensboro-H.Point-W.Salem, NC
  • 47 Albuquerque-Santa Fe, NM
  • 48 Louisville, KY
  • 49 Memphis, TN

Looking at this list, the two main relocation candidates are honestly London and Toronto. Maybe Vancouver with the right ownership groups and some further upgrades to BC Place, but that's doubtful.

 

But honestly, other than the Redskins and Saints, I don't see any NFL teams needing to strike a deal for a new stadium anytime soon. The Bills are getting a new stadium, the Chiefs seem happy at Arrowhead, and obviously the Packers are going to be at Lambeau for years to come. Other than those teams, every other stadium has either been newly constructed or massively renovated since the Rams and Raiders first moved in 1995 (hell, FedEx Field opened in 1997, they just built it with a terrible design in a terrible location).

 

The Redskins can shop between DC, MD, and VA for a stadium deal, and I don't think there's any viable way for the Saints to get the State of Louisiana or City of New Orleans to fork over money they don't have for a new stadium, for obvious reasons - a Superdome renovation is far more likely. (Luckily, it seems like Saints ownership is fully committed to New Orleans and hasn't threatened relocation at all.)

 

The only real relocation candidate are the Jaguars, and their situation is bleak largely because of the lackluster fanbase, not because of their facility. So at this juncture, I don't think the NFL really needs a super-viable relocation threat in order to secure new stadium deals in existing markets. The NFL successfully milked the Los Angeles relocation threat for new stadiums (or massive renovations) for almost every NFL team, and only have two less-than-ideal stadium situations left in the entire league (New Orleans and Washington). It's not a coincidence that the the NFL waited to fill the LA market until virtually every single team had a new stadium in place - they no longer need a viable relocation threat hanging over municipalities' heads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Tuesday, Mark Davis had a 20-minute interview with JT The Brick* on the Raiders flagship station.  Davis did admit that at one point, 20% of the team was put up for sale more than once.  First to Colony Capital and secondly to Floyd Kephart and lastly to Lew Wolff/John Fischer of the Athletics. 

 

http://www.957thegame.com/media/audio-channel/raiders-owner-mark-davis-breaks-down-relocation-brick-brick-jt-brick

 

*- JT is also a Raiders employee as he is the sideline reporter for preseason games and hosts a segment on their weekly show during the season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, neo_prankster said:

New Orleans' stadium situation less than ideal? What's wrong with the Superdome? I thought they were making all kinds of renovations.

Yeah they finished a bunch of renovations a few years back, that's how they got the super bowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, neo_prankster said:

New Orleans' stadium situation less than ideal? What's wrong with the Superdome? I thought they were making all kinds of renovations.

 

1 hour ago, ltjets21 said:

Yeah they finished a bunch of renovations a few years back, that's how they got the super bowl.

While there were over $300M in renovations post-Katrina, it will soon be the fifth oldest stadium in 2020 when it has just five years remaining on the lease.

 

It took the state and the Saints three years to come to an agreement on said lease terms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dfwabel said:

From Tuesday, Mark Davis had a 20-minute interview with JT The Brick* on the Raiders flagship station.  Davis did admit that at one point, 20% of the team was put up for sale more than once.  First to Colony Capital and secondly to Floyd Kephart and lastly to Lew Wolff/John Fischer of the Athletics. 

 

http://www.957thegame.com/media/audio-channel/raiders-owner-mark-davis-breaks-down-relocation-brick-brick-jt-brick

 

*- JT is also a Raiders employee as he is the sideline reporter for preseason games and hosts a segment on their weekly show during the season. 

 

I can't believe there's any way that the NFL would let him drop his ownership stake down to 28%.  Unless Davis was going to get his minority owners to sell at a "very reduced value"?  I'm calling bull :censored: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's probably going to be a need for further renovations to the Superdome in the coming years. There's already chatter in New Orleans about where further work will be needed at the end of the 15 year lease in 2025. (http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2017/01/new_orleans_doesnt_need_a_new.html, for instance.)

 

New Orleans obviously wants to remain in the regular Super Bowl rotation, so they're going to probably need to make continual updates to the Superdome every decade or so to make sure it remains up-to-date, lest they risk falling off the rotation like Jack Murphy/Qualcomm did. But by no means do they need a new stadium, or are looking for one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

I can't believe there's any way that the NFL would let him drop his ownership stake down to 28%.  Unless Davis was going to get his minority owners to sell at a "very reduced value"?  I'm calling bull :censored: .

But isn't the question, whose 20% was it?

Ginny Boscacci, Rita Boscacci, Jack Hartman, Bob Seaman, Doray Vail, Gertrude Winkenbach, or the guys Al sold shares to in 2007? David Abrams, Dan Goldring and Paul Leff?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dfwabel said:

But isn't the question, whose 20% was it?

Ginny Boscacci, Rita Boscacci, Jack Hartman, Bob Seaman, Doray Vail, Gertrude Winkenbach, or the guys Al sold shares to in 2007? David Abrams, Dan Goldring and Paul Leff?

 

Do any of them actually have 20% to sell?  Or was Davis offering up multiple people's shares?  Carving off a little of each of the minority owners' stakes?

 

He claims he was offering a stake at a highly discounted rate.  How likely is it that he was authorized to offer somebody else's shares at a deep discount?  Alternately, how likely is it that the NFL would let him cut his family's holdings in half and still be the controlling owner with only 28%?  Neither makes any sense at all. 

 

The other obvious explanation, and I think the more likely one, is that he's lying. 

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.