Jump to content

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay


duma
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7836485/minnesota-senate-committee-approves-bill-public-subsidy-help-vikings-build-new-stadium-minneapolis

ST. PAUL, Minn. -- A Minnesota Senate committee narrowly approved a public subsidy on Friday to help the Vikings build a new football stadium, reviving the team's struggling effort just hours after NFL commissioner Roger Goodell visited the state Capitol to jumpstart what had been a stalled stadium debate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like Tampa Bay used to be for MLB clubs, before they actually got a team and we all learned what a lousy baseball market the place actually is.

I wouldn't consider that "fixed" just yet, though.

But I'll be interested to see what Goodell does when/if talks break down with the Rams. Of course, they already have arbitration in place, so maybe he'll want to stay out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly the only way I see LA getting a team is either through expansion, or the Chargers move up I-5 if they don't get a new Stadium, because they have to be next with a Stadium me thinks, but also lack solid fan support, something the Vikings have a ton of. Jags I doubt it now with Khan, and there is always the Rams.

The NFL wants LA, LA kinda wants the NFL, but the NFL also likes the 31 cities they're in right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think it could be the Raiders if Mark Davis sells the team to L.A. interests. There are tons of Raider fans still in L.A. I really don't see a new stadium for the Raiders in Oakland or them sharing the 49ers new stadium in Santa Clara. It might be portrayed by the NFL and the media that the Raiders are the last team the league wants in L.A. but I just wouldn't be surprised if the Raiders ended up back in there with new owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's more than just the media - the NFL doesn't want the Raiders back in LA. There will be a ton of exposure the first few years, and many people remember what those Raider games were like.

I agree with you, NEW.ERA, that the NFL isn't especially eager to move any existing franchises. But I don't doubt that they'll do just that if it suits their interests. I don't think Goodell is bluffing here, and apparently the Minnesota legislators agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly the only way I see LA getting a team is either through expansion, or the Chargers move up I-5 if they don't get a new Stadium, because they have to be next with a Stadium me thinks, but also lack solid fan support, something the Vikings have a ton of. Jags I doubt it now with Khan, and there is always the Rams.

The NFL wants LA, LA kinda wants the NFL, but the NFL also likes the 31 cities they're in right now.

You've never been to San Diego have you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remind me, how many games were blacked out in San Diego last season?

Since when did blackouts equate to fan support? Particularly when the Chargers play in one of the largest stadiums in the NFL, and have been under-performing for the last two seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly the only way I see LA getting a team is either through expansion, or the Chargers move up I-5 if they don't get a new Stadium, because they have to be next with a Stadium me thinks, but also lack solid fan support, something the Vikings have a ton of. Jags I doubt it now with Khan, and there is always the Rams.

The NFL wants LA, LA kinda wants the NFL, but the NFL also likes the 31 cities they're in right now.

Minnesota does have fan support, but if they don't geta stadium done that won't mean anything. I don't think they want the Vikes to move, but they'll let it happen if it must.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remind me, how many games were blacked out in San Diego last season?

Since when did blackouts equate to fan support? Particularly when the Chargers play in one of the largest stadiums in the NFL, and have been under-performing for the last two seasons.

Ticket sales don't reflect fan support? What is a better demonstration of a team's support base than people spending their money to attend a game?

I'm not saying that they're the worst fans in the sport, but any team that has multiple blackouts at home (and is only spared others through extensions etc.) can be said to exhibit a lack of solid fan support.

His point didn't entirely come out of left field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh move the Chargers to LA. They need a new stadium and they're not going to get one in San Diego. Plus it wouldn't require realignment, and it would block the Raiders moving to LA, which the League doesn't want to see happen anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're just over a week away from the date the Rams have to submit their proposal for stadium upgrades. Not sure how much of that will become public knowledge, though.

The CVC will then have until June 1 to make their decision on that offer. Assuming that is rejected, two weeks of official but non-arbitrated negotiations would commence. (Presumably, behind the scenes discussions/negotiations have already occurred to some extent.)

If no deal is reach, arbitration would begin on June 15th with December 1 listed as the intended completion of arbitration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we will see the Rams' proposal, if not from the Rams then from the CVC. They can't be so crazy as to think these negotiations can be moved behind closed doors once started in the open.

I don't think it'd be a matter of hiding, I just don't know if the CVC is allowed to release the Rams proposal or not. They felt (or said they felt) they had to do to freedom of information laws regarding their own proposal. The Rams would be a private entity making a proposal, so I don't know if the same such laws apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More on that note here: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/cvc-says-public-can-t-see-dome-plan-without-rams/article_3670b455-3e66-5b8e-9d36-5a298ed2d63c.html

The CVC's proposal was only released because the Rams gave permission. Per the lease, both sides have to agree to release information. The Rams have not yet stated whether they'll allow their proposal to be released.

However, state laws probably require it, ultimately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems as though you're right, the sunshine laws will require public disclosure. As it should be; if taxpayers are on the hook for this money, they should be able to watch the process by which their money is spent.

But if the Rams try to keep these discussions out of the view of the public, I would take that as a very bad sign for St. Louis.

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.