Jaguars considering playing some games in Orlando

[dfwabel]

For the record, the city has said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what they're willing to do about the Rams stadium. No politicians have said they won't built/renovate. And no vote has asked the public anything.

If there was a vote today, I don't think they'd get it, but I think there's a general feeling of "a lot can change in 4-5 years, let's see where we are when we need to decide". So I think everyone is premature in assuming the Rams won't get a stadium deal done.

If whoever owns the team then demands it be agreed on by the opt out date or they move, then they'll probably move. But if they're seeking to stay in STL and willing to be flexible, I think there's a good chance with a little patience, they'll have their stadium.

That said, even if St. Louis has no plans to build a stadium and does end up losing the Rams... it's not like the Jones Dome is falling apart...AT ALL. The Jags would still probably be more profitable playing to sold-out crowds in a mid to low-range Jones Dome than they are in a slightly newer stadium in Jacksonville. At this juncture anyways.

The only reason the Rams Stadium is an issue is because of the lease they gave the Rams to move here saying they had to be in the top 25% of stadiums. On a normal lease, the Rams maybe would be eyeing the possibility of a new stadium, but they wouldn't be demanding it quite this quickly.

$30M was put into the facility for this season, but back in June, this interview took place.

Dan Dierdorf on the Rams future

[STL FANATIC]

Wasn't calling you out, illwauk, just the idea as it's been thrown out there before. Also didn't mean to come off cranky about it.

[IceCap]

Everyone keeps saying that, but it's not happening.

And the biggest reason isn't even the one you're thinking (I think). It's that a team besides the Bills will not be utilizing the Toronto market. Either the Bills move there, or nobody does.

This is very true. It's the Bills in Toronto or no one. Of course there are plenty of other reasons why it won't work.

Fan support.

People complain about the lack of fan support for the CFL, but if the Bills' current adventures into Toronto have proven anything it's not that we don't care about the CFL, it's that Canadians, by in large, are not as football hungry as Americans. After hockey it's baseball. Football and basketball really duke it out for a distant third.

The NFL thought they would sell out the Rogers Centre, no problem. After all this is a city with a small venue (NFL wise) and has been toying with the idea for years. Sure thing right? Well no. They didn't even sell out the RC. And again it's small as far as NFL stadiums go.

Also, how many of those were local GTA fans, and how many were fans from Buffalo who travelled up for the game? Yes, the GTA has a solid Bills fanbase, but enough to support the team without the Buffalo fanbase, which they would lose a significant percentage of if they moved? I doubt it.

Venue.

The Rogers Centre is simply to small. It's the MCI Centre of potential NFL stadiums. Also, there are NO plans to build a new NFL sized stadium. The city doesn't have the money or the interest. As far as Toronto is concerned, the Rogers Centre is more then capable of permanently housing a NFL team, and I'm not sure the NFL would feel the same way if they looked at Toronto as real potential relocation candidate.

TV Rights.

CTV? TSN? Global? Rogers? NBC, ESPN, CBS, and Fox don't broadcast here. Who gets the rights to air Toronto Bills broadcasts? And seeing as the majority of the viewership would be coming from Canada, that means the American networks lose out on ratings.

It's just not going to work. Besides, the only acceptable name for a NFL team in Canada, the Red Coats, probably won't be utilized, so bugger to that.

Really, yes, Red Coats. The prospect of the New England Patriots playing the Toronto Red Coats is the only saving grace for the NFL in Toronto

[DarkJourney]

Not to be a party pooper, but if St. Louis or San Diego lose their NFL team I don't think the league will be going back to those cities ever again.

[STL FANATIC]

Not to be a party pooper, but if St. Louis or San Diego lose their NFL team I don't think the league will be going back to those cities ever again.

It's all situational.

First off, with 32 teams and 30 markets, the NFL doesn't have many other places to go. LA is there now. Toronto, Mexico City, and others have been pretty plainly and legitimately shot down in this thread, already. If a team is looking to move, St. Louis and San Diego would automatically go at the top of the list (assuming LA is full).

San Diego has had the Chargers for some time and supported them well. Their issue is a stadium issue.

St. Louis has only had the Rams about 15 years. They lost their first NFL team less than a decade before the Rams came. Losing two teams would look bad on the surface, but in both cases it was a stadium issue, and specifically in the Rams case, fan support is not an issue.

What's that all mean? That means the NFL won't hesitate to go back to either market... if the stadium issues are resolved in those markets (essentially meaning the cities need to build a new one).

But the markets aren't failures. Teams can succeed with strong fan support in both locales. I don't think the NFL would avoid going back if the stadium situation was right.

[IceCap]

Not to be a party pooper, but if St. Louis or San Diego lose their NFL team I don't think the league will be going back to those cities ever again.

Baltimore, Cleveland, Houston, and yes, St. Louis, would all disagree.

Besides, aren't we discussing relocation to a city that's already lost two teams?

[Saintsfan]

Not to be a party pooper, but if St. Louis or San Diego lose their NFL team I don't think the league will be going back to those cities ever again.

Baltimore, Cleveland, Houston, and yes, St. Louis, would all disagree.

Besides, aren't we discussing relocation to a city that's already lost two teams?

No...

LA has lost 3 NFL teams. The Chargers, Rams and Raiders have all relocated away from LA.

I can understand why the NFL wants to crack LA, and I think its possible that the situation is better than it has been before, but I don't think moving a team to LA is going to be a guaranteed success.

[The_Admiral]

STL Fanatic: how likely or savvy is it for Kroenke to divest himself of the Nuggets and Avs so he can buy the Rams outright?

All this musical chairs talk is starting to make my head spin. Chargers and Jaguars andBills and this and that and on and on. oy. I hope the Jaguars move to Los Angeles and that'll be the end of it.

[BBTV]

If the Chargers move to LA, I can certainly see the NFL going back to SD if the stadium situation is taken care of. Of course, it'd probably be a relocation rather than expansion.

Honestly, (and I'm not just trying to ruffle Fanatic's feathers here), I think that St. Louis is often times really not looked at objectively in terms of its size, affluence, and other factors that are necessary to support something on the level of an NFL team. Being generous, the area is the 16th largest metro area in the country (and that's including counties that may or may not truly be part of "greater St. Louis"), has at most 2.8 M people (and is shrinking - at least re-distributing), and just doesn't have the type of business climate as many of the cities that are typically looked at as atractive places for top-level teams. They're able to support the Cardinals well, because they are such a local institution, but I just can't see it being on the "wish list" of the league to come back to, unless it's a case of "well, Jacksonville is failing and there's no where else to put them, so throw them in St. Louis." It's certainly a more viable solution than some of the other cities mentioned in this thread (San Antonio for example), but it's not one of those cities that the league has to be in.

[Gothamite]

That's why I suspect the "Rams to LA, Jags to St. Louis" is an actual option. I just don't see a local buyer stepping forward, and I don't see the city building a new stadium.

I know that the Rams could always choose to just ignore that clause in the lease, but come on. Nobody who has made enough money in business to buy an NFL franchise is going to willingly forego the revenue streams that his competitors have in their new stadiums. We might like to think they're sentimental, but business is business.

So, I tend to view the Rams as already moved. I could well be wrong, but it just seems too likely to me. For argument's sake, let's say that they are. If the Jags haven't already moved, they'll make a beeline for Missouri - they can write a new lease on the place, and in any case anything would be better than Jacksonville.

[The_Admiral]

Honestly, (and I'm not just trying to ruffle Fanatic's feathers here), I think that St. Louis is often times really not looked at objectively in terms of its size, affluence, and other factors that are necessary to support something on the level of an NFL team. Being generous, the area is the 16th largest metro area in the country (and that's including counties that may or may not truly be part of "greater St. Louis"), has at most 2.8 M people (and is shrinking - at least re-distributing)

I don't think St. Louis is too small for the NFL, not at all. In terms of raw numbers, there's no reason why it shouldn't work. The problem might be the people behind the numbers. I think one problem, which downstater Rams80 has articulated many times, is that the Rams put little to no effort into marketing themselves to the same vast footprint of Mid-America that the Cardinals claim. If you start looking at the plcaes beyond St. Louis that we associate with the Cardinals, I don't think we associate them all with the Rams. Lots of Chiefs fans and Bears fans in that footprint, from what I can tell. Packers and Colts too. There's undoubtedly a passionate core of Rams fans in St. Louis, as there's a passionate core of fans with every team, but it's not as big as you'd expect it to be. Maybe it's not big enough. St. Louis appears to rely on visiting fans of regional opponents a hell of a lot more than you'd expect a good midwestern "sports town" to do. That's not really the case with Blues games. That's anything but the case with Cardinals games. Yeah, everyone was on board for the GSOT, but any place can do that. Maybe with baseball being so disproportionately huge in St. Louis, there's not room for the NFL.

[IceCap]

Not to be a party pooper, but if St. Louis or San Diego lose their NFL team I don't think the league will be going back to those cities ever again.

Baltimore, Cleveland, Houston, and yes, St. Louis, would all disagree.

Besides, aren't we discussing relocation to a city that's already lost two teams?

No...

LA has lost 3 NFL teams. The Chargers, Rams and Raiders have all relocated away from LA.

I can understand why the NFL wants to crack LA, and I think its possible that the situation is better than it has been before, but I don't think moving a team to LA is going to be a guaranteed success.

Technically speaking LA's only lost two NFL teams. When the Chargers left town after 60-61 they were still in the AFL.

I get what you're saying though

And yeah, LA DOES make sense to try again from the NFL's PoV. It's the second largest media market in the country. I'm not saying the NFL shouldn't try it. In fact part of me is looking forward to the prospect of the Los Angeles Chargers.

I was simply making a point to DarkJourney that a city can always regain NFL football after losing it.

Oh, I forgot Oakland.

[Gothamite]

I'll go you one better than "can" - every city that has lost its only NFL team since 1937 has received another franchise.

With the sole exception of Los Angeles, which I think we can all agree won't be on this list much longer.

[Sodboy13]

And so, the race is kinda sorta almost officially on.

[leopard88]

Peter King's take on the relocation race, offered without comment (except to say that STL Fanatic won't like it) --

Peter King -- Handicapping the Candidates for California Relocation

[STL FANATIC]

Just gonna respond to a few things without quotes, because I'm lazy, so just try to follow.

I see very little chance Kroenke will divest himself of his Colorado franchises. However, I don't think it's as unlikely as some think that he'll find a way around the rules (such as a family member making the purchase) or to get the rule waved. Not expecting it, but it's a possibility.

St. Louis isn't huge, but it's still a respectable market. And it's sports crazy. Give us a hard-working competitive team and we'll support it. The Rams haven't even had considerations of attendance problems (and remember, the GSOT was only about 4 years--lots of other bad to mediocre years) until the last two years when the team has been absolutely abysmal. Right now we are relying on out-of-towners, but (1) a full stadium is a full stadium, and (2) when this team becomes a playoff contender (as in just plain competitive, you'll see fans willing to dish out their money again. It's no different than the Blues. A team that's bad AND gives a sloppy effort will get little support here. But a good effort that results in being competitive, then you'll see the fans. We love champions, but we only demand hard work.

They do need to market more beyond St. Louis. In Champaign, I can find plenty of fellow Cardinals fans, but when I say I'm a Rams fan I get a crazy look. The Bears have this state on lockdown, but I don't think it has to be that way in So. Illinois.

And while the business community doesn't have many giants left, they know how important sports are to the fans of St. Louis. They'll support the teams. That doesn't mean there's necessarily someone wealthy enough to buy them, though, but I'm still confident that they will.

I think it's awfully silly to assume they're moving. Nobody running the organization wants them to move, and nobody is forcing their hand. It was reported that something like 3 of 6 bids right now are St. Louis bids. We'll see if they can work this out.

As for Peter King, first off, he's dumb because he said Derek Jeter is the greatest baseball player of his time. Secondly, I still don't see how the Rams, who don't want to move and can't announce a move until after 2014 at the earliest, are more likely than the Chargers who have been prepping themselves for LA, have a connection with Roski, and can leave SD really any time now. Or the Jaguars who just don't seem viable in Jacksonville.

I'm not dismissing the notion that the Rams are a candidate, even a top one, they just aren't THE top candidate.

[The_Admiral]

They do need to market more beyond St. Louis. In Champaign, I can find plenty of fellow Cardinals fans, but when I say I'm a Rams fan I get a crazy look. The Bears have this state on lockdown, but I don't think it has to be that way in So. Illinois.

Why do you suppose this is? Downstate is known as being split betwixt Cubs and Cardinals fans, but it's solidly Bears. My thought was that so many people have grown up with the Bears being either the closest team around or the quality alternative to the lousy old Gridbirds. One would think that the Rams' success would've converted a lot of people, but I think once you start following the stupid Bears, you're in for life. The bad seasons are almost more fandom-affirming than the good ones. That's one tough gas tank to siphon. Unfortunately, unlike gas tanks, Bears fans don't explode when you set them on fire, but I'm working on it. Anyway, short of winning the Super Bowl since that didn't appear to work anyway, how do you think the Rams can exploit untapped markets beyond St. Louis?

As for Peter King, first off, he's dumb

no argument here!

[STL FANATIC]

I'm not really sure. For one thing, I don't really know if there are "untapped" markets. As you said, most of those people for one reason or another (I think what you said about only having the Bears/sometimes having the crummy Cardinals) Bears football just is in their blood so to speak. They don't strictly affiliate themselves with one metro area or another, but they've historically been affiliated to those teams, so it's probably not an easy thing to break.

They use to run training camp in Macomb, IL. I don't think that should be decided based on marketing, but I do wonder if that would help.

But really, I'm stumped as to what they could do to position themselves as more than just St. Louis's team. But there's gotta be something.

[Gothamite]

Agree on Peter King, but the Rams have to be near the top of relocation lists if only because:

1. they're up for sale;

2. hovering in the bottom third in attendance lists; and

3. have an opt-out of their stadium lease coming up.

The Jaguars have a very solid lease through 2030. Sure, they could find a way to break it if they wanted to, but it won't be easy. They have to prove that they lost money three years in a row (hard to do with revenue sharing and the salary cap), or prove that Jacksonville has failed to maintain the stadium. So even though I would put the Jaguars at the top of the "Should Move" list, they can't realistically be elevated above the Rams and Chargers as far as "Will Move" goes.

Only the Chargers could be considered more likely to move, and that again is because they can opt out of their lease soon. Being in different conferences makes the Chargers and the Rams either #1 and #2 or #1 and #1A.

[The_Admiral]

Florida sports teams and onerous leases. Same deal with the Rays.