NFL Jaguars could be sold and moved

[AHcreative]

Better the Jags than the Rams. I've been calling this one for years. Jacksonville's not that huge of a sports market and Florida already has two other teams. I don't see why Florida gets to have 3 teams and then L.A., one of the biggest sports markets has not one. And I think that L.A. should only have one. I'm sick of them pushing the "two teams or none" deal. I'm all for this.

[RyanMcD29]

Shouldn't this be in Sports in General?

[BBTV]

Shouldn't this be in Sports in General?

MOD EDIT: There's no need for the snarky attitude. He was simply asking a question.

[Ron Mexico]

Could the LA Jaguars mean that the Toronto Vikings could become a reality? San Antonio Vikings?

If those happens, we could be looking at the Minnesota Bills a few years after that.

San Antonio has repeatedly refused to either renovate the Alamodome or build a new stadium, plus Red McCombs doesn't own the Vikings anymore, so cross San Antonio off the list. And I'll eat my hat if the Vikes move to Toronto, their stadium is even worse for football than the Metrodome and the Bills want that territory anyway.

[wyopokes2]

i'm curious about how they would change up the divisions. they couldn't possibly stay in the afc south could they. maybe a transfer to the nfc west and switch with the rams. after all missouri is farther east than it is west

[Viper]

Could the LA Jaguars mean that the Toronto Vikings could become a reality? San Antonio Vikings?

Any chance of the Vikings moving to San Antonio probably died when Red McCombs sold the team.

However there is one more possibility (for the Jags, Vikings and Bills, not to mention the Chargers, Rams, Raiders and maybe even the Saints) that no one here's considered yet: Mexico City.

London may have replaced MexC as the NFL's preferred international destination for now, but remember that MexC filled the huge Estadio Azteca for a meaningless game between two awful teams (the 49ers and Cards) in '05, and that Roger Goodell has raised the idea of both cities as possible Super Bowl sites in the future. Unlike London though, MexC is located in the same time zone as several current NFL teams, so a team based there would have no trouble fitting into the league as far as TV and scheduling are concerned.

Come to think of it, the "Mexico City Jaguars" would be a natural, due to the aforementioned Aztec connection.

[goaztecs]

I wouldn't mind seeing the Jags come to LA, hell any pro team not named the Avengers is fine by me.

[mrfab]

As greedy/hungry as I am for an LA NFL team, I suggest re-reading the Phila. Daily News article that's started this "LA NFL Relocation" go-round. The Daily News reporter NEVER states the purported mogul trying to buy the Jags intends to relocate them to LA or anywhere. That this mogul is likely trying to buy the Jags seems real & newsworthy. Here the Daily News reporter repeats the familiar "Jags To LA?" rumor as speculation with NO mention of any "sources" unnamed or otherwise to corroborate that the tire-kicking Jags' mogul wanna be owner plans relocation.

Here's where the story so far gets interesting to me: The Fla. Times Union Jax paper reporters are the ones reporting on the original Phila. Daily News story & construing the LA Relocation rumor as "unnamed sources" relocation substantiation, which amounts to a rumor about a rumor on THAT particular notion. The Jags in play & for sale? THAT's a story right now. Them being relocated? A rumor of a rumor I sez, for now

[Cibivxx]

If the Jags were to move to LA, I think a name change would be in order. Personally, I feel if a team moves states, they should try to endear themselves to their new surroundings w/ a whole new identity. I mean, who wants to root for what amounts to a second-hand franchise otherwise? Anyway, if LA were to get a team I hope they don't use an animal name. Los Angeles just seems like such a "big time" place that an animal mascot just would seem inadequate. They'd probably be better off w/ one of those somewhat abstract "human-ish" type names that don't really have a clear representation, like Giants, Dodgers, Lakers, etc.

Oh the irony.

And also, how do the Lakers not have a clear representation? Granted the name makes little sense ever since when they moved nearly 50 years ago, but even with that, the Lake representation is still obvious.

[guest23]

As greedy/hungry as I am for an LA NFL team, I suggest re-reading the Phila. Daily News article that's started this "LA NFL Relocation" go-round. The Daily News reporter NEVER states the purported mogul trying to buy the Jags intends to relocate them to LA or anywhere. That this mogul is likely trying to buy the Jags seems real & newsworthy. Here the Daily News reporter repeats the familiar "Jags To LA?" rumor as speculation with NO mention of any "sources" unnamed or otherwise to corroborate that the tire-kicking Jags' mogul wanna be owner plans relocation.

Here's where the story so far gets interesting to me: The Fla. Times Union Jax paper reporters are the ones reporting on the original Phila. Daily News story & construing the LA Relocation rumor as "unnamed sources" relocation substantiation, which amounts to a rumor about a rumor on THAT particular notion. The Jags in play & for sale? THAT's a story right now. Them being relocated? A rumor of a rumor I sez, for now

a new stadium is no longer economically viable in LA...it would cost well over $1B and the city of LA is the one city not stupid enough to pony up taxpayer money for 8 reg season days of revenue...all of these stadium deals are a total scam on the local economies the league fools these cities into building a taxpayer funded facility and then they have to give the team 100% of the revenues inside the stadium all for the privilege of calling itself an nfl city...the wonderful jobs that end up being created are $8/hr parking attendants and hot dog vendors.

I've followed this saga fairly closely...with the soaring costs of construction the only way a stadium in LA would be remotely viable is if two teams relocated and shared it...and I almost forgot that every nfl fan in the city already roots for another team in which watching a full slate of games at a "team" bar has become more of a cultural event than supporting some team that has no ties to the city...not to mention that we always get 3 good games on tv every sunday.

to sum it up LA does not need nor want a team...the nfl needs LA...and for those of you who think there are economic benefits of a local team the city would be much better off building a $500M corporate campus for a fortune 500 company (actual good paying full time jobs) or god forbid we spend money on something like education or fixing the traffic.

[Joely]

Thank you guest 23. Your thoguhts are considered and insightful - however is there any chance that a wealthy individual could pay for any entirely privately financed stadium if push came to shove?

Also, as an architecture stydent, I came across an amusing design concept for a new NFL stadium in LA. A giant floating arena (much like a an air craft carrier), that would dock at Long Beach. When the time came that the francise would relocate, the owner sails off into the sunset (literally) to a new coastal location!! The idea was tongue in cheek to some extent, but would save land price issues...the Dutch reclaim land (and are now building floating houses on risers that mean the people won't suffering from the increased likelihood of flooding in the very low lying Netherlands) all the time, ian;t this a possibility?

Sorry if I've ended up going way off course...LA Aztecs (resurrect the NASL theme + lots of design possibilities) is my call...

[Cujo]

If the Jags were to move to LA, I think a name change would be in order. Personally, I feel if a team moves states, they should try to endear themselves to their new surroundings w/ a whole new identity. I mean, who wants to root for what amounts to a second-hand franchise otherwise?

Los Angeles had no business keeping nicknames like the Lakers and Dodgers and they seemed to work out okay, so I wouldn't have a problem if they kept them as the Jaguars if the were to move to the left coast. Plus, it's not like actual jaguars are exclusive to, or have a history with the state of Florida, so I would imagine the City of Jacksonville would let the owners leave without putting up a fight to keep team's identity.

As a mater of fact, you're more likely to see a Jaguar roaming the streets of L.A. than you are to see one in J-ville...

[dahatman]

Better the Jags than the Rams. I've been calling this one for years. Jacksonville's not that huge of a sports market and Florida already has two other teams. I don't see why Florida gets to have 3 teams and then L.A., one of the biggest sports markets has not one. And I think that L.A. should only have one. I'm sick of them pushing the "two teams or none" deal. I'm all for this.

You need to remember when the NFL added Jacksonville in 1995, LA still had two teams in the market. The finalists at the time were Charlotte, St. Louis, Memphis, Baltimore, Jacksonville and one other that I do not remember. In 93 or so when the selection was made, the Rams were in Anaheim, the Titans were still the Oilers, the Ravens were the original Cleveland Browns. Also, when the NFL expanded into Houston, they were the fall back city. The NFL desperately tried to get a team into LA but they could not get a "decent" stadiums deal nor a viable ownership group. I think the Jaguars to LA is a good move and will benefit the league. As for the Bills to Toronto, I believe that Ted Rogers owns the Argos, please correct me if I am wrong, and the NFL a few years ago invested in the CFL, so if they want to move to Toronto I think there is a way to have a done properly. As for San Antonio, Mexico City and London, they are either too small, too dirty/bad water or too far to be a viable NFL franchise.

[rams80]

Better the Jags than the Rams. I've been calling this one for years. Jacksonville's not that huge of a sports market and Florida already has two other teams. I don't see why Florida gets to have 3 teams and then L.A., one of the biggest sports markets has not one. And I think that L.A. should only have one. I'm sick of them pushing the "two teams or none" deal. I'm all for this.

You need to remember when the NFL added Jacksonville in 1995, LA still had two teams in the market. The finalists at the time were Charlotte, St. Louis, Memphis, Baltimore, Jacksonville and one other that I do not remember. In 93 or so when the selection was made, the Rams were in Anaheim, the Titans were still the Oilers, the Ravens were the original Cleveland Browns. Also, when the NFL expanded into Houston, they were the fall back city. The NFL desperately tried to get a team into LA but they could not get a "decent" stadiums deal nor a viable ownership group. I think the Jaguars to LA is a good move and will benefit the league. As for the Bills to Toronto, I believe that Ted Rogers owns the Argos, please correct me if I am wrong, and the NFL a few years ago invested in the CFL, so if they want to move to Toronto I think there is a way to have a done properly. As for San Antonio, Mexico City and London, they are either too small, too dirty/bad water or too far to be a viable NFL franchise.

It's one of the ten largest cities in the country IIRC.

It may not get a team, but size won't be the reason.

[cheo25]

Better the Jags than the Rams. I've been calling this one for years. Jacksonville's not that huge of a sports market and Florida already has two other teams. I don't see why Florida gets to have 3 teams and then L.A., one of the biggest sports markets has not one. And I think that L.A. should only have one. I'm sick of them pushing the "two teams or none" deal. I'm all for this.

L.A. no longer has a team and hasn't had one since 1994 because the city, area, etc., hasn't been able to solve its stadium issue. It has nothing to do with market size. St. Louis gave Georgia Frontiere and the Rams a sweetheart deal and the promise of a new stadium, one the Rams use today. Oakland lured Al Davis and the Raiders with the promise of a renovated coliseum -- hence the Mount Davis section of that stadium. Meanwhile, no one wants any part of the L.A. Coliseum and that's been the only existing alternative for any team wanting to move to L.A. They've supposedly made progress on a new stadium, which is why all the talk about an NFL team going to L.A. has been revived.

In recent years, some team moves haven't had much to do with market size or fan support, but with dissatisfaction over stadiums. Along those same lines, the Sonics moved because Seattle refused to build a new arena. The city renovated Key Arena in the mid-1990s, had built two other stadiums since then (Safeco Field, Qwest Field). The move didn't have that much to do with market size or fan support. Same thing happened when the Browns moved to Baltimore. Art Modell couldn't get Cleveland to build a football stadium after the city built new baseball and basketball stadiums and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. And Baltimore offered a sweetheart deal, complete with a new stadium.

[illini1]

I could be wrong, but I thought I remembered the NFL adding a new rule sometime in the 90's that if a team moves, the nickname stays with that city. They did this so that if they ever get a new team, they can use the nickname. I could be mistaken though.

[BallWonk]

As a mater of fact, you're more likely to see a Jaguar roaming the streets of L.A. than you are to see one in J-ville...

Not since Ford bought Jaguar and turned the brand into overpriced Tauruses. Last few years, you're much more likely to see a Jag in a place like Jacksonville than in any self-respecting wealthy district.

Anyway, LA Jaguars makes a heck of a lot more sense than Lakers or Dodgers (or Rams). And since LA sports is all about stealing other cities' good team names as nonsensical hand-me-downs, the Jags should keep the name if moving to LA. But it's gotta change color schemes.

[Alphabet Man]

Keep the Jaguars in Jacksonville.

I hate how American sports teams move home whenever they feel like.

I'm not sure how sports fans are over in the US, but over here, your football club is your life.

Have a look through the obituary section of a newspaper and youll see many references to there favourite club.

But maybe US sports fans don't see there team as their life.

And maybe the owners don't see the members, supporters, the fans that pay each week to see them play and instead care only for the dollar.

[Proc]

L.A. is a HUGE market. But, will the people of L.A. actually support a team?

Jacksonville will move. Its inevitable.

So, if JAX goes to L.A. then I guess division alignments would need to change, eh?

[Gothamite]

Could the LA Jaguars mean that the Toronto Vikings could become a reality? San Antonio Vikings?

Any chance of the Vikings moving to San Antonio probably died when Red McCombs sold the team.

However there is one more possibility (for the Jags, Vikings and Bills, not to mention the Chargers, Rams, Raiders and maybe even the Saints) that no one here's considered yet: Mexico City.

London may have replaced MexC as the NFL's preferred international destination for now, but remember that MexC filled the huge Estadio Azteca for a meaningless game between two awful teams (the 49ers and Cards) in '05, and that Roger Goodell has raised the idea of both cities as possible Super Bowl sites in the future. Unlike London though, MexC is located in the same time zone as several current NFL teams, so a team based there would have no trouble fitting into the league as far as TV and scheduling are concerned.

Come to think of it, the "Mexico City Jaguars" would be a natural, due to the aforementioned Aztec connection.

No way. The peso's far too weak. You think Canadian teams had it tough in MLB for all those years?