NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[goalieboy82]

24 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Yes.  Part of the NFL’s move agreement puts a time limit on how quickly they could sell the team.  10 years, IIRC.  That’s there to keep someone from moving for the increased franchise value and flipping it without having to do the hard work.

 

But the Spanos family does have the funds to operate the team.  All teams have their basic expenses covered by shared revenue alone. 

 

Last year, each team got $255M from shared revenue, mostly television contracts and shared merchandise (teams keep 100% of what they sell in their own online stores and their physical shops, everything else is shared equally with all teams except Dallas).  The total salary cap for the 2018 season is $177.2M.  That leaves $78M in ready cash for other team expenses before a single ticket is sold. There are a lot of those other team expenses, including coaching salaries, rent, facilities, marketing, etc., but a team in real financial distress could theoretically pull back on some of those to stay afloat.  If ticket sales and local sponsorships and everything else fell short. 

 

Now, where it gets interesting is debt owed to the league, money that only the Chargers owe.  They have to repay the NFL every year for installments on their relocation fee and stadium financing loans.  It’s concevable, although extremely unlikely, that the Spanos family might not have revenues enough to cover those payments on top of everything else. And in that case, the league would either have to agree to some sort of repayment modification or force them to sell.

 

[Mac the Knife]

11 hours ago, Gothamite said:

It’s concevable, although extremely unlikely, that the Spanos family might not have revenues enough to cover those payments on top of everything else. And in that case, the league would either have to agree to some sort of repayment modification or force them to sell.

 

Actually Goth, this situation is already addressed thanks to past precedent.  In the 1980's, the NFL adopted a resolution requiring the league to withhold revenue distributions to teams in the event of any delinquencies in payments owed to the league (a result of some stink between the league and Hugh Culverhouse).  A few years later, they adopted another resolution tacking interest onto the delinquent amount.  So no matter what?  The NFL's going to get their money; they'll just deduct it from the Chargers share of TV revenues if they have to.

[Gothamite]

Exactly.  I didn’t mean to imply that Spanos could withhold payments due to the league. 

 

I’m actually pretty sure that the league deducts the relocation fee out of shared revenues before they’re distributed anyway; Spanos will never see that money.

 

But keep in mind that they could always re-write these policies to help an owner everybody seems to like. We’re talking about internal corporate guidelines, not complex federal law.

 

The bottom line is that it seems tremendously unlikely that the Spanos clan will be unable to meet their expenses.  As much fun as that would be. 

[Mac the Knife]

2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Exactly.  I didn’t mean to imply that Spanos could withhold payments due to the league. 

 

I’m actually pretty sure that the league deducts the relocation fee out of shared revenues before they’re distributed anyway; Spanos will never see that money.

 

But keep in mind that they could always re-write these policies to help an owner everybody seems to like. We’re talking about internal corporate guidelines, not complex federal law.

 

The bottom line is that it seems tremendously unlikely that the Spanos clan will be unable to meet their expenses.  As much fun as that would be. 

 

True, but it's even more parochial than that - the NFL isn't a corporation.  It's legal structure is that of an unincorporated association, which makes it even more pliable to such circumstances.  In fact none of the "big four" sports leagues are organized as corporations, LLC's or partnerships (though they have side business entitles which are).  The NBA's setup is so vague that depending on the jurisdiction, they're legally classified as a partnership (California and several other states in which teams operate), an unincorporated association (New York), or a joint venture entity (Canada, and several states).

 

But you're right - the NFL's going to get its money, and Spanos and his family come out ahead, pretty much no matter what.

[bosrs1]

Well if the Raiders end up leaving Oakland early it looks like their options are narrowing. While Amy Trask isn’t an insider anymore she does still have insider connections. And hers are saying the league is opposed to a temporary move to San Diego. Lest they disrupt the Rams halfhearted attempts to woo the largely teamless masses of that city. Or the Chargers and Dean Spanos’ pitiful attempts to say he’s “sorry” by paying former San Diego stars like Nick Hardwick and LT to sell out and beg former fans like dogs. 

[Gothamite]

Yeah, I can’t imagine a circumstance under which a temporary Raider stay in San Diego looks like a good idea to the league.

[Wings]

18 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Yeah, I can’t imagine a circumstance under which a temporary Raider stay in San Diego looks like a good idea to the league.

 

Especially when the Chargers would have to return to San Diego for one game to play the Raiders. It would be hilarious but yeah it ain't happening. 

[BBTV]

Toronto Raiders?

[LMU]

10 hours ago, Wings said:

 

Especially when the Chargers would have to return to San Diego for one game to play the Raiders. It would be hilarious but yeah it ain't happening. 

There’d be more boos than Lesnar/Goldberg at WrestleMania XX.

[Cosmic]

I would love nothing more than to see the Los Angeles Chargers versus the San Diego Raiders in San Diego, but the NFL could always move that game to London. The only problem is that it would be so transparently to avoid bringing the Chargers back, that San Diego fans might reject the whole experiment entirely (I know I probably would).

[TBGKon]

The more and more things that happens I feel like they might just suck it up and play at Levis Stadium for a year.  

[leopard88]

I picture the league relenting and letting them play at Sam Boyd Stadium.  It's not as modern as the StubHub Center, but it holds at least 5,000 more fans and is in their eventual home city.

 

The only two options that seem plausible are an available site in the Bay Area (since it can be sold as not really being a "move") or Sam Boyd Stadium.  Playing anywhere else for a year would look a lot like the Oilers playing in Memphis . . . which went so well that they left for Nashville a year early.

[BBTV]

SBCPE players were saying that it really wasn’t that bad when they went to London to play the Jaguars. Granted, they were coming from the east coast, but even if you didn’t have a bye the following week, flying west isn’t as bad as flying east (time zone wise) so if they could rig it so a team goes from east coast to London then back to a game on the east coast, just for one season, maybe it wouldn’t be as terrible as it otherwise could be to put them in London for a season. 

 

One of their “road” games could be the Jags “home” game there, so that would lighten the travel burden on them at least a little bit, so they’d only have 7 games in the states. 

 

They could even work them in as a “road” team in one of the other London games, giving them only 6 US games. There’s obviously a competitive advantage there, but the team is so horrible that in this one case, for one year, it isn’t likely to matter. 

[TBGKon]

53 minutes ago, leopard88 said:

I picture the league relenting and letting them play at Sam Boyd Stadium.  It's not as modern as the StubHub Center, but it holds at least 5,000 more fans and is in their eventual home city.

 

The only two options that seem plausible are an available site in the Bay Area (since it can be sold as not really being a "move") or Sam Boyd Stadium.  Playing anywhere else for a year would look a lot like the Oilers playing in Memphis . . . which went so well that they left for Nashville a year early.

The issue with Sam Boyd isnt the size, its seems like the stadium isnt prepared logistically for NFL teams.  The locker rooms need to be upgraded from what Ive heard

[leopard88]

15 minutes ago, AstroBull21 said:

The issue with Sam Boyd isnt the size, its seems like the stadium isnt prepared logistically for NFL teams.  The locker rooms need to be upgraded from what Ive heard

 

I know the issue is not the size.  If the locker rooms are an issue (and they may be one of many), there must be a solution that would work for 10 games.  To me, that seems like a relatively cost effective solution as compared to finding a one year home in a city with no long term interest in the team.

[dfwabel]

7 minutes ago, leopard88 said:

 

I know the issue is not the size.  If the locker rooms are an issue (and they may be one of many), there must be a solution that would work for 10 games.  To me, that seems like a relatively cost effective solution as compared to finding a one year home in a city with no long term interest in the team.

There's also a big electrical/fiberoptic deficiency, a secured perimeter issue, and likely a new turf needed as their current one was laid down in 2015.

[leopard88]

19 minutes ago, dfwabel said:

There's also a big electrical/fiberoptic deficiency, a secured perimeter issue, and likely a new turf needed as their current one was laid down in 2015.

 

Fair enough.

I guess the bottom line is that there are really no truly good alternatives available.

[bosrs1]

On 11/2/2018 at 9:35 AM, leopard88 said:

 

I know the issue is not the size.  If the locker rooms are an issue (and they may be one of many), there must be a solution that would work for 10 games.  To me, that seems like a relatively cost effective solution as compared to finding a one year home in a city with no long term interest in the team.

That and I think the Raiders object to entering Vegas in anything but the ideal new stadium situation. You don’t half ass entry to a new market. You end up with the Rams or even worse the Chargers situation.

[BBTV]

1 minute ago, bosrs1 said:

That and I think the Raiders object to entering Vegas in anything but the ideal new stadium situation. You don’t half ass entry to a new market. You end up with the Rams or even worse the Chargers situation.

 

If that's the case, then I totally agree with them.  First impressions are everything, and even though as a fan you know you're watching them or attending a game in a temporary home and the palace opens next year, it's hard to shake that feeling of amateurism that you're likely to have from watching or attending a game played under those circumstances.

 

 

Not sure why I want this so bad, but godsdammit let's make the London Raiders happen!

 

[Gothamite]

6 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

That and I think the Raiders object to entering Vegas in anything but the ideal new stadium situation. You don’t half ass entry to a new market. You end up with the Rams or even worse the Chargers situation.

 

Absolutely.  

 

Although I don’t think the Rams’ situation with the Coliseum is bad at all, the Chargers’ certainly is.