Jump to content

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay


duma
 Share

Recommended Posts

Wait what?I was under the impression that he sold 20%. And that Davis share's are still at or around 55%.Maybe I'm reading it wrong.I think Mark's shares are under AD football or whatever Al listed them in as a Corporate name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

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. 

David Abrams, Dan Goldring and Paul Leff together have 20%.

 

That leaves 80%. Mark, through his mother, seems to have between 47-53%, so there is such amount to be controlled. Those others listed are all over 85 years old, so they could cash out* together.

 

*- sell their shares, not pass away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've seen it reported that the Davis family owns 48% in all.  And that they've received a waiver from regular NFL ownership rules permitting them to remain "majority shareholders" since Al Davis retained the voting rights for at least some of the stock he sold. So that would lend credence to our 48% number.  Makes sense.  But Davis can't sell anything he owns, unless he was offering to sell shares with no voting power. Which aren't full shares at all.  Which maybe explains why nobody took him up on it?  Because there's no reason to believe that the other owners will extend that waiver further if he reduces his holdings again. 

 

So that leaves 52% to play with.   I absolutely believe that Davis could convince some of that remaining 52% to cash out.  But at a "deeply discounted rate"?   And doubly so, since the value will shoot up shortly once they have that new stadium.  That beggars belief.  

 

I don't see why minority owners would settle for pennies on the dollar unless they were absolutely forced to sell by external forces such as death or taxes, and in that case they'd sell anyway, which is not what happened here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, kroywen said:

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.

 

Why would the Saints need to strike a new deal? The Superdome just got close to $500 million in renovations post Katrina. It's effectively an entirely new stadium inside the old dome like Arrowhead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, kroywen said:

The Bills are getting a new stadium

 

Really?  I must have missed that.

 

Can we ban the next person that suggests London?  That's simply ridiculous unless particle beaming has become a thing and I just missed when it was reported in the news.

 

It doesn't look like anyone is moving anywhere.  The Jags probably should move, but they seem to have good ownership that's committed to the region now so that's not happening (until some other city makes an offer he can't refuse.)

 

I don't think there's any team in dire straits anymore.  Washington isn't going anywhere (though if they did they'd have to change the name so that's a plus), the Saints aren't going anywhere, I don't know what the stadium situation is in KC but there hasn't been any significant rumblings coming from there, so if the Bills are settled then there's really no candidate to move.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Why would the Saints need to strike a new deal? The Superdome just got close to $500 million in renovations post Katrina. It's effectively an entirely new stadium inside the old dome like Arrowhead.

No it's not and the locals know it.  As I and 'kroywen' linked to, the current lease is halfway through and it took the team and state three years to agree to it.  There are some issues in which the author details.

 

The $360M, not $500M, paid for the exterior damage, redid the lower bowl, part of the mezzanine/club level, all restrooms and expanded the Saints locker room. The new scoreboards are from this year.

Edited by dfwabel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Really?  I must have missed that.

 

I thought they had secured a deal already since they have actually sold the naming rights to it already (as part of the package to rename the Ralph), but apparently they haven't, and aren't immediately pursuing one either: http://buffalonews.com/2017/02/11/no-stadium-discussions/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Can we ban the next person that suggests London?  That's simply ridiculous unless particle beaming has become a thing and I just missed when it was reported in the news.

London is going to be the city teams threaten to move to during stadium negations, just like LA used to be. The NFL needs that threat and they'll use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dfwabel said:

No it's not and the locals know it.  As I and 'kroywen' linked to, the current lease is halfway through and it took the team and state three years to agree to it.  There are some issues in which the author details.

 

The $360M, not $500M, paid for the exterior damage, redid the lower bowl, part of the mezzanine/club level, all restrooms and expanded the Saints locker room. The new scoreboards are from this year.

 

Yeah, much of that money was targeted toward repairing damage from Katrina. There wasn't a "like-new" renovation on the Superdome ("like-new" in the sense of Soldier Field, MSG, Yankee Stadium in 1976, etc.).

 

I don't think the Superdome needs a "like-new" renovation at all, and it doesn't seem like the Saints ownership does at this time either, though we'll see if they're singing the same tune in 2025. It's a perfectly serviceable stadium that doesn't need to be replaced at all, but that's rarely stopped franchises from demanding new stadiums in pursuit of new revenue streams. I certainly hope that Saints ownership don't decide to go that route in 2025, but if they think they can get a viably secure a stadium deal that would open up new revenue streams, history tells us that they will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ltp74 said:

London is going to be the city teams threaten to move to during stadium negations, just like LA used to be. The NFL needs that threat and they'll use it.


Difference is that nobody believes that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2017 at 9:47 AM, Pharos04 said:

 

What's with the flame at one end?

las-vegas-stadium-aug26-3.jpg

 

I've seen versions of this with the Lombardi Trophy, but I guess they've always had plans for a flame?

 

mc-nfl-owners-meetings-los-angeles-.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ltp74 said:

London is going to be the city teams threaten to move to during stadium negations, just like LA used to be. The NFL needs that threat and they'll use it.

 

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.... and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, raysox said:

las-vegas-stadium-aug26-3.jpg

 

I've seen versions of this with the Lombardi Trophy, but I guess they've always had plans for a flame?

 

mc-nfl-owners-meetings-los-angeles-.jpg

 

 

When they were still trying to convince people that they'd share a stadium in LA with the Chargers, their original proposal had what they called a "cauldron" that would shoot lightning bolts during Charger games and an Al Davis memorial flame during Raider games.  

 

1223134214196667495.jpg

 

They later scrapped that and replaced it with a huge Lombardi Trophy for some reason.

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.