Jump to content

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay


duma
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yes, but there is a dark shadow to consider.

St. Louis voters won't care about the proportionate amount of money that they will be saddled with compared to the team, but rather the whole dollar amount.

As the Paulistes seem to be calling the shots in the state right now, how are you going to sell a $250 million contribution to a populace that wouldn't like to spend a penny?

/You do also realize that Oklahoma-area presence is only going to last until Landry Jones goes pro, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if this Rams deal gets done, where is the next stop on the build-us-a-stadium-or-we're-moving-to-LA campaign? San Diego?

Well, we're a long ways away from saying the Rams deal gets done, but yeah, I would think San Diego is next.

Here's the thing about LA, though.

At this point, is it even slightly more likely that one of the LA stadium plans come to fruition than say the Rams plans or any other city? Don't even factor in the chances that a team decides they want to move... just that a stadium deal is even agreed upon? (I'm aware that to fully finalize plans, a team must commit.)

I think in 10 years a team will probably call LA home, but it's hard to try and pin point anything beyond that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now the Kings and Clippers are becoming a power in their sport. The Dodgers are in first with a MVP caliber player making waves. The Lakers still have Kobe. NFL interest there might be at an all time low. People think differently there. The NFL isn't king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said it several months back, but I think the NFL will drag on the LA negotiations until they are able to get new stadiums for all the teams that want them. The Vikings deal might not have gone through, at least as quickly, if the NFL didn't have Los Angeles to move them to. Even if they never uttered the name in talks with Minnesota legislators, everyone knew LA was a real threat to take the team. Now on to the Rams.

Meanwhile, LA is a "must have" market according to the NFL, yet nothing of note has happened in the past year with either of the stadium deals. I think the league will keep "pondering" the LA stadium deals until everybody they want to stay in their current market gets a new stadium. And realistically, it might only be the Rams they want to keep. We know LA is getting two teams. I think we all expect the Jaguars will wind up in LA. We know that nobody wants the Raiders there. That leaves the Chargers as the only team which needs a new stadium, and they would be a logical choice considering their current LA presence. I think it will eventually be the Jags and Chargers moving to LA. However, maybe the NFL is waiting on Ralph Wilson to die. The Bills are going to be a sticky situation. Even if they can find a local ownership group, it would take serious negotiations to get a new stadium deal done. I think the league will keep LA open until the Bills situation is resolved. In the meantime, if something breaks in San Diego and the Chargers get a new stadium, they would gladly accept that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, LA is a "must have" market according to the NFL, yet nothing of note has happened in the past year with either of the stadium deals.

True, but that's because the stadiums are pretty much ready to go forward, as soon as a team is ready. Obviously there are a multitude of details, but they've cleared the big hurdles.

And as you note, that's exactly where the league wants them. The NFL is quite happy to keep those stadium proposals floating out there as leverage in their negotiations with existing municipalities. Worked very well in Saint Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said it several months back, but I think the NFL will drag on the LA negotiations until they are able to get new stadiums for all the teams that want them. The Vikings deal might not have gone through, at least as quickly, if the NFL didn't have Los Angeles to move them to. Even if they never uttered the name in talks with Minnesota legislators, everyone knew LA was a real threat to take the team. Now on to the Rams.

Meanwhile, LA is a "must have" market according to the NFL, yet nothing of note has happened in the past year with either of the stadium deals. I think the league will keep "pondering" the LA stadium deals until everybody they want to stay in their current market gets a new stadium. And realistically, it might only be the Rams they want to keep. We know LA is getting two teams. I think we all expect the Jaguars will wind up in LA. We know that nobody wants the Raiders there. That leaves the Chargers as the only team which needs a new stadium, and they would be a logical choice considering their current LA presence. I think it will eventually be the Jags and Chargers moving to LA. However, maybe the NFL is waiting on Ralph Wilson to die. The Bills are going to be a sticky situation. Even if they can find a local ownership group, it would take serious negotiations to get a new stadium deal done. I think the league will keep LA open until the Bills situation is resolved. In the meantime, if something breaks in San Diego and the Chargers get a new stadium, they would gladly accept that.

I tend to agree with all of this. I am not certain to what degree the NFL really cares about having LA, but what I am quite certain they do care about is not getting team(s) to LA while there are still other teams out there with unresolved stadium situations. They want to get places like Minnesota, St. Louis, and San Diego with nice new shiny stadiums (preferably with almost no private financing). Having, say, Jacksonville and San Diego move to LA with unresolved stadium issues in Minnesota and St. Louis would have killed their big threat.

Meanwhile, LA is a "must have" market according to the NFL, yet nothing of note has happened in the past year with either of the stadium deals.

True, but that's because the stadiums are pretty much ready to go forward, as soon as a team is ready. Obviously there are a multitude of details, but they've cleared the big hurdles.

And as you note, that's exactly where the league wants them. The NFL is quite happy to keep those stadium proposals floating out there as leverage in their negotiations with existing municipalities. Worked very well in Saint Paul.

So to what extent is the NFL trying to slow this down? I'd not be surprised if they are doing everything the can until those last couple of taxbases pony up...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if this Rams deal gets done, where is the next stop on the build-us-a-stadium-or-we're-moving-to-LA campaign? San Diego?

Well, we're a long ways away from saying the Rams deal gets done, but yeah, I would think San Diego is next.

Here's the thing about LA, though.

At this point, is it even slightly more likely that one of the LA stadium plans come to fruition than say the Rams plans or any other city? Don't even factor in the chances that a team decides they want to move... just that a stadium deal is even agreed upon? (I'm aware that to fully finalize plans, a team must commit.)

I think in 10 years a team will probably call LA home, but it's hard to try and pin point anything beyond that.

It'll be at least a year before San Diego is up. With the current mayor outgoing he's beyond the point where he'll do anything regarding a Chargers stadium. He's already on to "next guy's problem" syndrome. So nothing can or will be done until the next guy/gal is in and situated in about a year's time.

Oakland however doesn't have that mayoral issue however and I'd expect them to be up next, to be followed by San Diego next year. Only things I can think of that would keep them pushing Oakland this year are that Oakland has no money and can't help with a stadium which defeats the purpose of pressuring them (and the NFL already knows that), and/or they have no desire to have the Raiders back in LA, which also seems possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now the Kings and Clippers are becoming a power in their sport. The Dodgers are in first with a MVP caliber player making waves. The Lakers still have Kobe. NFL interest there might be at an all time low. People think differently there. The NFL isn't king.

While that could keep some fan-based pressure down, I don't think it will scare the NFL off. I think a big part of the reason the NFL may not be big in LA is because it's been gone so long. But with USC no longer the undisputed darlings of college football, and most of the other things you cite quite fluid, I'd say the NFL would have no doubt that a team could be supported in LA.

It seems generally believed that there will be two teams. Most two-team markets in NFL/other sports have some history (albeit fading history for Jets/Giants) have some general geographic ties for fan bases. If two teams come into the same stadium at the same time, it'll be interesting to see who become fans of each.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what's interesting to me is that, after years of relative inactivity, we might get going on this very quickly at the end of the year. As I undertand it, the CVC/Rams arbitration will end in December, meaning that by the end of the season the Rams will either have a new stadium deal or they'll be packing their bags.

And if the Rams do move, I expect to see an AFC team jump on board as soon as possible so they can be a meaningful contributor to the process, more like the 2007 Jets than the 1984 Jets.

Plus that would speak to your point, OnWis97, that one team wouldn't want to be the "kid brother", coming late to the party and trying to pick up any fans who didn't jump to the first team. Those dynamics could be very interesting, especially if we're talking about the Rams and Chargers, one of which has historical ties to the city and the other can retain much of its existing fanbase through the move.

EDIT: that should be the "1984 Jets"...

Edited by Gothamite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very true.

But what's interesting to me is that, after years of relative inactivity, we might get going on this very quickly at the end of the year. As I undertand it, the CVC/Rams arbitration will end in December, meaning that by the end of the season the Rams will either have a new stadium deal or they'll be packing their bags.

And if the Rams do move, I expect to see an AFC team jump on board as soon as possible so they can be a meaningful contributor to the process, more like the 2007 Jets than the 194 Jets.

In that case it would become an all California race between the Raiders and Chargers.

The Raiders have said they'd like to stay in Oakland but are open to reopening negotiations in Santa Clara, Dublin (CA) or LA depending on who wants them most (hint it definitely won't be Dublin and it probably won't be Santa Clara). And with Oakland about to have the only money they had left stripped from them by the state (3.5 million that was slated to do the new stadium environmental report at the Coliseum site) I don't see how they get anything done there. Oakland has no money and the taxpayers will never approve the kind of funding Minnesota just got so it'll be on the Raiders to build the stadium in Oakland.

The Chargers case is a little more hopeful, though not by much. Their stadium plan is moving along, albeit glacially, with the financing plan not even due until September and after that a vote would likely need to be held. That said the Spanos family rebuffed AEG last year and has been publicly committed to San Diego for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, LA is a "must have" market according to the NFL, yet nothing of note has happened in the past year with either of the stadium deals.

True, but that's because the stadiums are pretty much ready to go forward, as soon as a team is ready. Obviously there are a multitude of details, but they've cleared the big hurdles.

And as you note, that's exactly where the league wants them. The NFL is quite happy to keep those stadium proposals floating out there as leverage in their negotiations with existing municipalities. Worked very well in Saint Paul.

Right, but since it will take three years to get the stadium built, I think it would have made sense to break ground a year ago. I think they are anticipating not putting a team in LA for at least five years. The fact that they are still dragging their feet makes me think they are waiting for the Bills to come up for sale in the next few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what's interesting to me is that, after years of relative inactivity, we might get going on this very quickly at the end of the year. As I undertand it, the CVC/Rams arbitration will end in December, meaning that by the end of the season the Rams will either have a new stadium deal or they'll be packing their bags.

By the terms of the lease, I think they're locked in through 2015 regardless of how these negotiations break down. But they could of course work out a buyout if they felt like they'd exhausted all their options and were definitely moving at that point.

However, another option (mentioned it above), is that negotiations would continue. Just because they couldn't come to an agreement on the top tier clause and the lease could be triggered to year-to-year after 2015, does not mean they couldn't necessarily come to any agreement. It's possible that discussions of a new stadium aren't even on the table right now. In theory, all the discussions are presently about meeting the requirements of the current lease.

However, at that point, the current lease would be essentially irrelevant, and you might see them start discussing plans for a new stadium with a new lease.

It's really all dependent on what has been discussed in the meantime, what sort of relationship they've developed, and what the motives of Kroenke are at that time. Not working out something by December would create one hell of a scary situation for St. Louis, but it wouldn't guarantee the Rams are moving to LA just that quickly.

It's worth noting that while we look at the Rams and St. Louis as being backed into some last minute corner, that's actually not the case at all. Minnesota was in that position. The Vikings could break their lease any year and leave. The Rams and St. Louis are actually on a timeline with months and months to figure this out. And if they don't, they'll still have a year or two (barring a buyout) to figure it out. And only after that time would the Rams and St. Louis be in the last minute situation the Vikings and Minnesota just worked through.

The difference in perception seems to be that the NFL really wanted the Vikings in Minnesota and the owners didn't want to leave Minnesota, but that neither is true for the Rams in St. Louis, and thus the Rams would bolt as soon as the door became cracked. But more and more it's seemingly like the motivation IS to keep the Rams in St. Louis. And if it is, then this isn't a backs to the wall situation. They're actually dealing with this in a very timely manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or it could be that the Rams are trying to maintain respectable attendance numbers before bailing.

/Where did you get that 8 state count anyway? I was looking and pretty much all I saw was Missouri, Illinois south of I-72, and the Sam Bradford-only fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, but since it will take three years to get the stadium built, I think it would have made sense to break ground a year ago. I think they are anticipating not putting a team in LA for at least five years. The fact that they are still dragging their feet makes me think they are waiting for the Bills to come up for sale in the next few years.

LA has two viable stadiums that could temporarily host the _______s in the event that a team announces today. I don't think they're too worried about a groundbreaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if this Rams deal gets done, where is the next stop on the build-us-a-stadium-or-we're-moving-to-LA campaign? San Diego?

Well, we're a long ways away from saying the Rams deal gets done, but yeah, I would think San Diego is next.

Here's the thing about LA, though.

At this point, is it even slightly more likely that one of the LA stadium plans come to fruition than say the Rams plans or any other city? Don't even factor in the chances that a team decides they want to move... just that a stadium deal is even agreed upon? (I'm aware that to fully finalize plans, a team must commit.)

I think in 10 years a team will probably call LA home, but it's hard to try and pin point anything beyond that.

It'll be at least a year before San Diego is up. With the current mayor outgoing he's beyond the point where he'll do anything regarding a Chargers stadium. He's already on to "next guy's problem" syndrome. So nothing can or will be done until the next guy/gal is in and situated in about a year's time.

Oakland however doesn't have that mayoral issue however and I'd expect them to be up next, to be followed by San Diego next year. Only things I can think of that would keep them pushing Oakland this year are that Oakland has no money and can't help with a stadium which defeats the purpose of pressuring them (and the NFL already knows that), and/or they have no desire to have the Raiders back in LA, which also seems possible.

Oakland's mayoral issue is different, it is about a potential recall (actually two separate recalls).

Right, but since it will take three years to get the stadium built, I think it would have made sense to break ground a year ago. I think they are anticipating not putting a team in LA for at least five years. The fact that they are still dragging their feet makes me think they are waiting for the Bills to come up for sale in the next few years.

LA has two viable stadiums that could temporarily host the _______s in the event that a team announces today. I don't think they're too worried about a groundbreaking.

On Monday, the LA Coliseum Commission approved the plan to give USC control of the Coliseum. The process of transferring the stadium to USC may start immediately as the commission has very, very low cash reserves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if this Rams deal gets done, where is the next stop on the build-us-a-stadium-or-we're-moving-to-LA campaign? San Diego?

Well, we're a long ways away from saying the Rams deal gets done, but yeah, I would think San Diego is next.

Here's the thing about LA, though.

At this point, is it even slightly more likely that one of the LA stadium plans come to fruition than say the Rams plans or any other city? Don't even factor in the chances that a team decides they want to move... just that a stadium deal is even agreed upon? (I'm aware that to fully finalize plans, a team must commit.)

I think in 10 years a team will probably call LA home, but it's hard to try and pin point anything beyond that.

It'll be at least a year before San Diego is up. With the current mayor outgoing he's beyond the point where he'll do anything regarding a Chargers stadium. He's already on to "next guy's problem" syndrome. So nothing can or will be done until the next guy/gal is in and situated in about a year's time.

Oakland however doesn't have that mayoral issue however and I'd expect them to be up next, to be followed by San Diego next year. Only things I can think of that would keep them pushing Oakland this year are that Oakland has no money and can't help with a stadium which defeats the purpose of pressuring them (and the NFL already knows that), and/or they have no desire to have the Raiders back in LA, which also seems possible.

Oakland's mayoral issue is different, it is about a potential recall (actually two separate recalls).

Right, but since it will take three years to get the stadium built, I think it would have made sense to break ground a year ago. I think they are anticipating not putting a team in LA for at least five years. The fact that they are still dragging their feet makes me think they are waiting for the Bills to come up for sale in the next few years.

LA has two viable stadiums that could temporarily host the _______s in the event that a team announces today. I don't think they're too worried about a groundbreaking.

On Monday, the LA Coliseum Commission approved the plan to give USC control of the Coliseum. The process of transferring the stadium to USC may start immediately as the commission has very, very low cash reserves.

Neither Oakland recall is getting anywhere. At least not fast. Quan will be out of office before they gather enough signatures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or it could be that the Rams are trying to maintain respectable attendance numbers before bailing.

/Where did you get that 8 state count anyway? I was looking and pretty much all I saw was Missouri, Illinois south of I-72, and the Sam Bradford-only fans.

KEVIN DEMOFF: We have spent a lot off time tyring to grow the team regionally around St. Louis. This year, for the first time, our preseason games on the Rams Broadcast Network, will be available in 8 states, and within every television market within 250 miles of St. Louis _ including Springfield. Regional growth is paramount to our club's success.

http://live.stltoday.com/Event/Rams_chat_with_Jim_Thomas#ixzz1v42sE8Hp

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.