Rams Officially Apply to Move to L.A.

[KenFSU]

For what its worth, the key date on the Jaguars calendar is 2020.

That is when the Jaguars lease ends.
Shad's agreement with Wayne will be done
It is when the play in UK agreement ends

To measure the temperature, sometime around 2018 the noise will start about the Jags future.

Until then, its just chit chat.

It's actually 2029, not 2020.

[spuwho]

For what its worth, the key date on the Jaguars calendar is 2020.

That is when the Jaguars lease ends.
Shad's agreement with Wayne will be done
It is when the play in UK agreement ends

To measure the temperature, sometime around 2018 the noise will start about the Jags future.

Until then, its just chit chat.

It's actually 2029, not 2020.

Which part is 2029, the lease?

[Tacachale]

Khan's doing the London thing because the deal as it is works for the Jags. He likes to go big and it gets the name out there, but more importantly, the NFL is covering the expenses. As far as the Jags are concerned, it's nothing but a money maker. Wembley sells out, but Khan doesn't have to pay the rent, or the travel. The only thing the Jags really lose is a home game, which probably throws the team off a bit, but obviously we're not at a point where losing one more game wrecks the season for us. The NFL as a whole hosting some games in London is a different prospect than one ownership group having to do it ten (or more) times every year.

I agree with Wacca that Mexico City might be a viable option for the NFL in the future. It depends on the inroads they're able to make. My old man always thought Mexico City would be a good expansion option for baseball, too, but they're not nearly as progressive as the NFL. This may be even more likely than Canada. That would be the death of the CFL for relatively little gain; there are at most three Canadian cities that would probably be suitable for the NFL.

Within the U.S., there will always be other places. There are fifty markets in the U.S. that could support a team of today's standards, and some that do/could support several. It's more a matter of owners coming along and the cities being willing to pay for the stadium.

[copperfiend]

For what its worth, the key date on the Jaguars calendar is 2020.

That is when the Jaguars lease ends.
Shad's agreement with Wayne will be done
It is when the play in UK agreement ends

To measure the temperature, sometime around 2018 the noise will start about the Jags future.

Until then, its just chit chat.

It's actually 2029, not 2020.

Which part is 2029, the lease?

http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/jaguars/2011-11-30/story/jaguars-lease-makes-it-costly-leave-jacksonville-2030

[Todd_Parker]

If St. Louis lost the Rams and built a new stadium, I can't imagine it would lure another team, except maybe the Raiders if Mark Davis gets desperate.  It's lost two teams before due to tepid fan support and gate revenues, and more importantly, St. Louis is a flat-growth area with two other popular pro teams (one extremely popular).  .

Tepid fan support? Well, 13 years of below .500 football will do that to a fan-base when you add in an owner who refuses to engage with the business/civic community. Those other popular pro teams you mentioned have been pretty successful for many years and have ownership groups that show dedication to the city.

The only reason why the city of St. Louis will lose the Rams is the greed of the owner. No NFL owner loses money due to tv contracts and revenue sharing, but Ram's owner, Stanley Enos Kroekne (named after famous St. Louis baseball Cardinal greats), is not satisfied with the millions he makes from having the team in St. Louis, he needs more to add to his $4 Billion net worth.

Here are some quotes from Mr. Kroenke from when he denied Shad Khan's purchase attempts and assumed full ownership of the Rams way back in late 2010:

"I'm going to attempt to do everything that I can to keep the Rams in St. Louis," Kroenke said in a phone interview Tuesday night. "Just as I did everything that I could to bring the team to St. Louis in 1995. I believe my actions speak for themselves."

"I'm born and raised in Missouri," Kroenke said. "I've been a Missourian for 60 years. People in our state know me. People know I can be trusted. People know I am an honorable guy."

"I'll do my damnedest," to secure the Rams' future in St. Louis.

I guess a lot can change in a few years.

[I-10east]

If the Jaguars start winning a lot and selling out the stadium, then the talk will decrease. They will always be at a disadvantage because of the relative size of the market.

Okay, so only big markets can afford to not sell the stadium out 100 percent. Indy, Seattle, Denver, Carolina, Houston, Baltimore, San Francisco, Chicago, Miami, Philadelphia and Green Bay are the only markets that sold 100 (or over ) of their seating. So all of those other small market teams that aren't selling out games are in jeopardy of moving, gotcha...

These markets (some which had a worse year than Jax)

Cleveland
Tennessee
Tampa Bay
Buffalo
Cincinnati
Detroit
& others

Hell even Dallas, NYJ, and Washington didn't have good year at the gate this year (percentile-wise).

Do you see this 'movaphobia' rabbit hole that I'm going down?

BTW the only teams that are lower than the '90 percentile' at home are the Redskins, Rams, and Raiders. There are only three teams that are in jeopardy of moving (SD STL & OAK); Any other teams mentioned is wild speculation right now.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance

[Adam White]

If the Jaguars start winning a lot and selling out the stadium, then the talk will decrease. They will always be at a disadvantage because of the relative size of the market.

Okay, so only big markets can afford to not sell the stadium out 100 percent. Indy, Seattle, Denver, Carolina, Houston, Baltimore, San Francisco, Chicago, Miami, Philadelphia and Green Bay are the only markets that sold 100 (or over ) of their seating. So all of those other small market teams that aren't selling out games are in jeopardy of moving, gotcha...

These markets (some which had a worse year than Jax)

Cleveland
Tennessee
Tampa Bay
Buffalo
Cincinnati
Detroit
& others

Hell even Dallas, NYJ, and Washington didn't have good year at the gate this year (percentile-wise).

Do you see this 'movaphobia' rabbit hole that I'm going down?

BTW the only teams that are lower than the '90 percentile' at home are the Redskins, Rams, and Raiders. There are only three teams that are in jeopardy of moving (SD STL & OAK); Any other teams mentioned is wild speculation right now.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance

That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that as long as there are attendance issues and as long as the Jaguars suck, people will fuel talk of moving.

I do think the size of the market is a disadvantage, however, as there are fewer people to pull into the stadium, fewer people to sell merch to, etc. But if the Jaguars start winning a lot and if the London thing continues to go well, they will sell more merch and stuff.

Teams that don't win don't tend to sell a lot of tickets - that's usually the way it goes, regardless of the sport. I think the fact that the Jaguars have been so poor for so long yet still manage to do okay these days is a great testament to the level of support they enjoy in the city and region. And if they start winning, you know the stadium will be sold out regularly.

[Wacca Pilatka]

If St. Louis lost the Rams and built a new stadium, I can't imagine it would lure another team, except maybe the Raiders if Mark Davis gets desperate.  It's lost two teams before due to tepid fan support and gate revenues, and more importantly, St. Louis is a flat-growth area with two other popular pro teams (one extremely popular).  .

Tepid fan support? Well, 13 years of below .500 football will do that to a fan-base when you add in an owner who refuses to engage with the business/civic community. Those other popular pro teams you mentioned have been pretty successful for many years and have ownership groups that show dedication to the city.

Understood and agreed from what I've read about Kroenke.  That was an overly broad statement for me to make.  I was thinking more in terms of how the Cardinals struggled to sell out Busch, a very small stadium.  Though I expect that may have had something to do with dissatisfaction with Bill Bidwell's ownership.

Didn't mean to defend the notion of an NFL owner moving any team, in any event.

[Wacca Pilatka]

I do think the size of the market is a disadvantage, however, as there are fewer people to pull into the stadium, fewer people to sell merch to, etc. But if the Jaguars start winning a lot and if the London thing continues to go well, they will sell more merch and stuff.

Teams that don't win don't tend to sell a lot of tickets - that's usually the way it goes, regardless of the sport. I think the fact that the Jaguars have been so poor for so long yet still manage to do okay these days is a great testament to the level of support they enjoy in the city and region. And if they start winning, you know the stadium will be sold out regularly.

I think that's a fair assessment.  Another disadvantage of the market is the lack of support from secondary markets.  Buffalo is a smaller market than Jacksonville but has a significant fan base in nearby cities like Rochester and Syracuse and Erie, people who travel to games and purchase Bills merchandise.  New Orleans is a smaller market but draws from Baton Rouge, the coastal Mississippi cities, etc.  Indianapolis, formerly unable to sell out the tin can known as the RCA Dome, effectively and aggressively marketed in other cities of Indiana.  The Packers of course draw from all over Wisconsin. 

A study a few years back showed that only 2,700 of the Jaguars' season tickets were sold to people from outside the immediate metro area (and I hold five of those!).  That may have changed somewhat, because Mark Lamping really stepped up the Jaguars' regional marketing focus when he arrived, but there are inherent limits on the Jaguars' regional marketing.  The secondary markets three hours away from Buffalo, New Orleans, etc. have always supported the Bills, Saints, etc.  With Jacksonville, there's pre-existing support for the Falcons or Dolphins or Bucs in Orlando, Daytona, Savannah, Tallahassee, Charleston, et al. and resistance from those media markets to cover or broadcast the Jaguars (and this predates the Jaguars' run of bad seasons, too).  It doesn't help that the Weavers seemingly were so entranced with the exceptional support the Jaguars got from the immediate metro area in the early years that they seemingly stopped making an effort at regional marketing.  Look how much smaller the Jags' radio network is than in 1995 or even 2005.

Khans' awareness of these issues was one of the drivers behind the London decision, I believe.  If nearby secondary markets won't commit to you, buy time and boost revenues via using a massive foreign city as your de facto secondary market.

[Tacachale]

If St. Louis lost the Rams and built a new stadium, I can't imagine it would lure another team, except maybe the Raiders if Mark Davis gets desperate.  It's lost two teams before due to tepid fan support and gate revenues, and more importantly, St. Louis is a flat-growth area with two other popular pro teams (one extremely popular).  .

Tepid fan support? Well, 13 years of below .500 football will do that to a fan-base when you add in an owner who refuses to engage with the business/civic community. Those other popular pro teams you mentioned have been pretty successful for many years and have ownership groups that show dedication to the city.

Understood and agreed from what I've read about Kroenke.  That was an overly broad statement for me to make.  I was thinking more in terms of how the Cardinals struggled to sell out Busch, a very small stadium.  Though I expect that may have had something to do with dissatisfaction with Bill Bidwell's ownership.

Didn't mean to defend the notion of an NFL owner moving any team, in any event.

I think you're on point that two of St. Louis's issues are stagnant growth, and the presence of two other major league teams (including baseball, which seems to suck up a lot of resources). But the idea that pretty much *any* NFL team isn't well support is a myth. They all attract tens of thousands to their stadiums and they essentially print money for the owners. Poor attendance is relative only to the other teams in a monopolistic league.

The major reason most teams move isn't attendance or support, it's stadium issues. Generally owners get huffy when cities won't give them what they want - like a number of other cities, St. Louis's only problem in building the football stadium is that they just spent hundreds of millions on a baseball field less than 10 years ago. And because the NFL keeps the number of teams artificially lower than the number of markets that could support them, they control the demand and there's always some other city that will do what the owners want.

LA is sort of the NFL's secret weapon right now. Even though the city won't bend over for the NFL, the market is so huge and attractive that owners want to move there anyway, making it a useful threat for bringing the rest in line.

[spuwho]

For what its worth, the key date on the Jaguars calendar is 2020.

That is when the Jaguars lease ends.
Shad's agreement with Wayne will be done
It is when the play in UK agreement ends

To measure the temperature, sometime around 2018 the noise will start about the Jags future.

Until then, its just chit chat.

It's actually 2029, not 2020.

Which part is 2029, the lease?

http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/jaguars/2011-11-30/story/jaguars-lease-makes-it-costly-leave-jacksonville-2030

Thanks for the correction!

[coredumped]

So the chargers also have the option to move to LA? They've had teams before and they've all left, why does the NFL think they can support 2 teams in LA? Not even chicago has 2 teams - only NYC.

[Tacachale]

^Well, and the Bay Area. For now.

[thelakelander]

So the chargers also have the option to move to LA? They've had teams before and they've all left, why does the NFL think they can support 2 teams in LA? Not even chicago has 2 teams - only NYC.

LA's MSA has 4 million more residents than Chicago's.  If Jax can support a team with less than 1.5 million residents, LA's 13.3 million should be fine with two. Also, LA fans disagree with the sentiment that they did not support the teams that left. They seem to be just as defensive as places like Jax were when others were saying the Jags would relocate. Here's a quote from a national forum where one fan gave his opinion of what took place 20 years ago with the Rams and Raiders.:

The problem was Georgia Frontiere. After Carroll Rosenbloom died, the owner of the Rams at that time, his wife Georgia took over and she had no idea on how to run it. She literally ran it into the ground. The Rams best years were in LA, fans packed the Coliseum 80k+ strong regularly.

The Problem was when she took it over, tons of bad management decisions later and other things, The Rams declined and couldn't win a game to save their lives. Its a myth that the people of LA didn't support the Rams, a myth that Georgia used just to move them to St. Louis, ironically her home town, a town that had just lost the Cardinals to Arizona.

LA supported the Rams all the way until the last year or so when she had already came out and said she was moving the team to St. Louis and that was the BS that got the myth started to begin with. Of course the fans were upset and felt betrayed so most didn't bother showing up to the games the last year.

The Chargers left because they hated sharing LA with the Rams and the Raiders left because Al Davis always wanted the Raiders back in Oakland where they started. The whole fan base not being there and other BS is just that. BS.

[Steve]

So the chargers also have the option to move to LA? They've had teams before and they've all left, why does the NFL think they can support 2 teams in LA? Not even chicago has 2 teams - only NYC.

SF Market has 2 now (Oakland is part of SF's TV Market). The issue has never been fan support, the issue was a stadium with modern revenue driving features - neither the LA Coliseum (LA Raiders) or Anaheim Stadium (LA Rams) have those - and it should be noted that the Rams are going to play in the Coliseum for at least 3 years.

Regardless, I do question the strategy. One of the reasons that I thought if they moved two they'd do it simultaneously was to avoid having one team get a marketing leg-up on the other - which is exactly what's going to happen. If the Chargers move, they'll be the other team.

The whole thing surprised me, especially since the NFL's Committee on LA (which is made up of owners) recommended earlier that day to support the Chargers/Raiders Joint Bid. Then a marathon session later, they vote 30-2 to support the Rams plan. Also, St. Louis seemed to be the city that was at least trying to put together a plan for their team - San Diego and Oakland didn't really try.