The St. Louis Rams have applied to move to Los Angeles, and didn't paint STL in a good light...Maybe now everyone will stop mentioning the Jags and LA in the same breath....
http://deadspin.com/in-application-to-move-to-los-angeles-rams-shit-all-ov-1751320853 (http://deadspin.com/in-application-to-move-to-los-angeles-rams-shit-all-ov-1751320853)
We haven't been part of that conversation for the past few years.
The low-hanging fruit now is us to London. Keep up. ;)
Yeah, the Jags won't move to LA. They will move to St Louis or some other city that decides they can't live without an NFL franchise. Maybe in 10 years or so.
^ dumb. dumb. dumb. dumb.
^clever. clever. clever. clever.
I actually do think St. Louis is a danger to Jacksonville. Khan has some pretty extensive ties to St. Louis. However, with all the stadium improvements, I don't think Khan could even justify it to the owners if he wanted to. Likewise, the Jacksonville Metro was growing at a 5% rate in 2014 (hopefully more now) and St. Louis was stagnant at a .6% rate of growth. St. Louis Metro does have 1.3 million more residents today though. I think the NFL made a conscious decision to commit to the South though when it gave Jax the Jaguars and I don't see them moving.
Quote from: FlaBoy on January 06, 2016, 11:58:45 AM
I actually do think St. Louis is a danger to Jacksonville.
If you read the application you'll see that not only do they describe the dire straits that the STL metro is in, but they warn every one else that a franchise would be ruined by locating in STL and will assuredly do harm to the NFL. So there's that...
Quote from: FlaBoy on January 06, 2016, 11:58:45 AM
I actually do think St. Louis is a danger to Jacksonville. Khan has some pretty extensive ties to St. Louis.
Worth noting that Shad Khan tried to purchase the St. Louis Rams in 2010, but Kroenke exercised first right.
That said, London is still a much bigger threat a decade down the road.
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on January 06, 2016, 12:15:52 PM
Quote from: FlaBoy on January 06, 2016, 11:58:45 AM
I actually do think St. Louis is a danger to Jacksonville.
If you read the application you'll see that not only do they describe the dire straits that the STL metro is in, but they warn every one else that a franchise would be ruined by locating in STL and will assuredly do harm to the NFL. So there's that...
That said, the purpose of the relocation application is to convince the NFL to allow them to uproot the Rams and move them to L.A. I'd expect Kroenke to paint St. Louis in the worst light possible. Feel really bad for those fans.
For the record, I was just winding everyone up. I cannot see into the future and have no idea what will happen.
That said, I certainly believe Khan would relocate the team as soon as the right offer came along.
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on January 06, 2016, 12:15:52 PM
Quote from: FlaBoy on January 06, 2016, 11:58:45 AM
I actually do think St. Louis is a danger to Jacksonville.
If you read the application you'll see that not only do they describe the dire straits that the STL metro is in, but they warn every one else that a franchise would be ruined by locating in STL and will assuredly do harm to the NFL. So there's that...
The Rams are in serious danger of losing out to SD and OAK in the relocation battle because STL and MO have ponied up so much money to build a new stadium. The word is the NFL owners are nervous about the PR and leaving such a large market while they believe SD fans will remain fans of the Chargers and the city of Oakland has not come close to getting a deal together to keep the Raiders. STL is a solid sports market but Kroenke has wanted LA for awhile so he mismanaged every relationship possible.
And what makes you think that? Do you have sources or just throwing out shit to see if it'll stick?
football in St. Louis hit the bricks when the Cardinals moved to Arizona. That was a complete joke! With the baseball birds still there, it was sad to see the football side leave. Now the RAMS are moving back to LA? Its been 2 decades since football was in LA and some guy plans to build a 1.9 billion dollar stadium that makes Jerry Jones Stadium look OLD?
Quotehey will move to St Louis or some other city that decides they can't live without an NFL franchise.
St. Louis is in a decline, the metro area can't/won't pay for upgrades to keep its 2nd team, why would Khan move the team for a 3rd bite at the apple? Just because he has ties to his alma mater in Illinois, don't think for a second that makes it a good fit for his football team.
From ESPN
QuoteST. LOUIS -- The St. Louis Rams and owner Stan Kroenke view their current home as a two-sport city offering a stadium plan unbefitting of an NFL team, the organization told the league in its application for relocation to Los Angeles.
In the final section of that document, filed to the NFL on Monday, the Rams indicate that St. Louis has fallen so far behind economically that it can no longer support three professional sports teams. Also, the Rams say the stadium proposal put forth by Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon's task force and the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority (RSA) does not appeal to them, let alone any NFL team.
"No NFL club would be interested in the RSA's New St. Louis Stadium," the application reads. "Any NFL Club that signs on to this proposal in St. Louis will be well on the road to financial ruin, and the League will be harmed."
According to a study cited by the Rams, St. Louis, which also is home to MLB's Cardinals and the NHL's Blues, ranks 61st out of 64 major cities in recent economic growth and has the lowest population growth of any major U.S. city since 2008. In bold letters, the application says San Diego and Oakland are "substantially stronger markets than the St. Louis market."
Quote from: mtraininjax on January 07, 2016, 02:20:05 AM
Quotehey will move to St Louis or some other city that decides they can't live without an NFL franchise.
St. Louis is in a decline, the metro area can't/won't pay for upgrades to keep its 2nd team, why would Khan move the team for a 3rd bite at the apple? Just because he has ties to his alma mater in Illinois, don't think for a second that makes it a good fit for his football team.
"They will move to St Louis
or some other city that decides they can't live without an NFL franchise."
and
"For the record, I was just winding everyone up. I cannot see into the future and have no idea what will happen. That said, I certainly believe Khan would relocate the team as soon as the right offer came along."
Didn't you previously take people to task about reading comprehension?
The point was that as long as there are cities with more money than sense, the possibility of the Jaguars relocating will be a concern.
St Louis may be "in decline" but it's not as if Jacksonville is in the best shape either. I wouldn't expect him to move the team to St Louis - but if the people in St Louis are willing enough to throw enough money at the prospect, I wouldn't be surprised if it became a possibility.
You're usually pretty even keeled Adam, but you're way off base with this one. Not even the zombies on PFT are saying the 'Jags to STL' crap anymore; London is NOT in the discussion either. That says alot for PFT, the lowest common denominator.
Quote from: I-10east on January 07, 2016, 07:04:29 AM
You're usually pretty even keeled Adam, but you're way off base with this one. Just stick to politics.
How am I "off base" I-10? In the time that I have followed the NFL since I was a kid in the late 70s, the following things have happened (not necessarily in this order):
*Colts moved to Indianapolis
*Browns moved to Baltimore
*Oilers moved to Tennessee
*Cardinals moved to Phoenix
*Raiders moved to Los Angeles
*Raiders moved to Oakland
*Rams moved to St Louis
I may have missed some and that was just off the top of my head. Although one could split hairs and explain the minute differences in each one of these scenarios, in most cases the owner moved the team because of supposed greener pastures to be found elsewhere (and maybe because the local yokels finally refused to give in to their demands).
How can you be so sure that the Jaguars are immune from this? I'm not saying that they WILL move - I'm just saying that it's always going to be a possibility.
^^^There is a possibly that the Eagles can move, but is the percentage really high? I have 'moving fatigue' already, years of hearing that stuff, we would've been gone by now. Until some earth shattering news comes about, any talk of the Jags even potentially moving is just extremely wild speculation, and goes totally against what Khan has shown thus far. I apologize for saying 'just stick to politics' sometimes I get too animated.
Quote from: Adam White on January 07, 2016, 07:17:52 AM
Quote from: I-10east on January 07, 2016, 07:04:29 AM
You're usually pretty even keeled Adam, but you're way off base with this one. Just stick to politics.
How am I "off base" I-10? In the time that I have followed the NFL since I was a kid in the late 70s, the following things have happened (not necessarily in this order):
*Colts moved to Indianapolis
*Browns moved to Baltimore
*Oilers moved to Tennessee
*Cardinals moved to Phoenix
*Raiders moved to Los Angeles
*Raiders moved to Oakland
*Rams moved to St Louis
I may have missed some and that was just off the top of my head. Although one could split hairs and explain the minute differences in each one of these scenarios, in most cases the owner moved the team because of supposed greener pastures to be found elsewhere (and maybe because the local yokels finally refused to give in to their demands).
How can you be so sure that the Jaguars are immune from this? I'm not saying that they WILL move - I'm just saying that it's always going to be a possibility.
There's one thing in common with ALL of those-bad stadium that couldn't generate money. Each city that got a team back built a new stadium, except in the Raiders moves (because Al Davis was willing to move on a handshake). Jacksonville doesn't have that issue. In fact, Khan has dumped $75 million of his own money into the stadium since he took over. Plus, there's a significant lease break fee. So, if he moves he just spent $100 million for nothing-terrible business move.
Now, I'm not going to stay the Jags could NEVER move, but at present it's an awful financial proposal.
Quote from: I-10east on January 07, 2016, 07:27:00 AM
^^^There is a possibly that the Eagles can move, but is the percentage really high? I have 'moving fatigue' already, years of hearing that stuff, we would've been gone by now. Until some earth shattering news comes about, any talk of the Jags even potentially moving is just extremely wild speculation, and goes totally against what Khan has shown thus far. I apologize for saying 'just stick to politics' sometimes I get too animated.
Hey - no need to apologize!
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.
St Louis has had two teams so far, as has Los Angeles. I wouldn't be surprised to see St Louis with another NFL team in the future. Things can change.
Quote from: Adam White on January 07, 2016, 08:56:59 AM
Quote from: I-10east on January 07, 2016, 07:27:00 AM
^^^There is a possibly that the Eagles can move, but is the percentage really high? I have 'moving fatigue' already, years of hearing that stuff, we would've been gone by now. Until some earth shattering news comes about, any talk of the Jags even potentially moving is just extremely wild speculation, and goes totally against what Khan has shown thus far. I apologize for saying 'just stick to politics' sometimes I get too animated.
Hey - no need to apologize!
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.
St Louis has had two teams so far, as has Los Angeles. I wouldn't be surprised to see St Louis with another NFL team in the future. Things can change.
They're going to have to write the big check - no team is going to move to play in the Edward Jones Dome.
Quote from: Steve on January 07, 2016, 09:21:02 AM
Quote from: Adam White on January 07, 2016, 08:56:59 AM
Quote from: I-10east on January 07, 2016, 07:27:00 AM
^^^There is a possibly that the Eagles can move, but is the percentage really high? I have 'moving fatigue' already, years of hearing that stuff, we would've been gone by now. Until some earth shattering news comes about, any talk of the Jags even potentially moving is just extremely wild speculation, and goes totally against what Khan has shown thus far. I apologize for saying 'just stick to politics' sometimes I get too animated.
Hey - no need to apologize!
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.
St Louis has had two teams so far, as has Los Angeles. I wouldn't be surprised to see St Louis with another NFL team in the future. Things can change.
They're going to have to write the big check - no team is going to move to play in the Edward Jones Dome.
They'll probably build something new. After 10 or 15 years without a football team, the city will forget its objections and start whoring itself out again. It's the circle of life.
I think it has been going on since the Romans... People want their sports... well most do.
Relocating a team would be very complicated and that team would have a hard time recruiting Free Agents in addition to the other issues raised in the below article from ESPN in 2013
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Updated: September 25, 11:23 AM ET
NFL in London raises legal issues
By Kristi Dosh
ESPN.com
During the offseason, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell made waves when he discussed the possibility of placing a team permanently in London. Many fans had questions, including: Who would want to play there? What owner would want to relocate? How could the NFL fairly assemble a schedule that included travel to and from London?
But there are stumbling blocks beyond those. Here's a look at the legal issues that could complicate such a move.
Tax laws
Tax laws are vastly different in the U.K. -- so different, in fact, that some athletes have refused to compete within its borders.
First, salary, appearance fees and prize money earned while competing in the U.K. are taxed at a rate of up to 45 percent. The highest rate in the U.S. currently is 39.6 percent. Additionally, U.S. tax law only allows for a foreign tax credit at the U.S. tax rate, meaning a player wouldn't be able to get a credit for up to 5.4 percent of the tax he paid to the U.K. if he were at the maximum rates for both countries
Athletes competing in the U.K. are also taxed on global endorsement income (as they are in the U.S.). The amount is determined by dividing the number of days the athlete spends training and competing in the U.K. annually by the total number of days he trained and competed around the world. That percentage is then multiplied by the athlete's total global endorsement income to determine the amount subject to taxation. Again, the athlete might not be able to take a U.S. tax credit for the full amount, given the difference in tax rates.
Currently, NFL players who participate in a game in London have their game checks subject to U.K. taxation. However, they generally spend less than a week in the U.K., and the portion of their endorsement income that becomes subject to taxation is minimal.
But a player for a London NFL team would find the tax burden to be far greater. He might play several preseason games and up to eight regular-season games in the country and spend far more of his training and practice time overseas, increasing the portion of both his salary and endorsement income subject to taxation. Would the higher 50 percent tax rate they would incur discourage free agents from signing with the London team?
The U.K. Treasury has granted tax exemptions for athletes in the past. For example, those competing in the London Olympics and the 2011 and 2013 Champions League finals at Wembley were granted exemptions. In addition, the 2013 Olympic Anniversary Games and 2014 Commonwealth Games have earned exemptions. However, exemptions are not always granted. The Treasury has previously rejected an exemption for players competing in the ATP World Tour finals.
Financial Times reports the British parliament might consider legislation during its next session that would allow for the fast-tracking of exemptions. There seems to be a growing push in the U.K. to adjust these laws as necessary to attract sports events and athletes to the country, so there's certainly room for some adjustments to be made if lawmakers believe an NFL franchise in the U.K. is to the country's benefit.
Working visas
Another problem might be the need for working visas to play as part of a home team in London. Currently, a player needs only a passport and is admitted under a temporary working visa for "sporting visitors," granted for one-off events. However, they would no longer be able to do that if they were playing a full home schedule in London.
The first hurdle the NFL would need to overcome is the requirement that an athletic governing body in the U.K. endorse the players in their applications for working visas. Ian Robinson, manager at the immigration law firm Fragomen in London, who was previously in charge of developing economic migration policy at the U.K. Home Office, says the NFL could handle this a couple of different ways: the league could negotiate with the existing British American Football Association or it could negotiate with the government to establish its own office based in the U.K. Either way, the NFL would have to come to terms with the government, because the British American Football Association is not currently recognized by the Home Office.
"I don't expect the negotiations [for the NFL to establish its own governing body] to be waved through, because they never are," warned Robinson, "but I would imagine they'd stand a good chance of getting the endorsement. The NFL is a serious body."
Once the NFL negotiated with the British American Football Association or established its own governing body, each player for a team playing home games in London would have to be evaluated individually.
"An overarching body would look at the players the [team] wants to bring over and take a view as to whether their presence here would benefit the sport in the U.K.," Robinson said.
"It isn't inconceivable that the Home Office will ask for reassurance that the move would benefit the U.K. game as a whole, including British players or youngsters," Robinson added. "But that would be for politicians to iron out in light of the wider economic benefits of the team."
There is a long-standing practice of requiring European football teams to prove a non-European player brings something "special and different" to the U.K., which prevents teams from giving roster spots to non-Europeans unless the player has skills and abilities that justify his taking a spot that could otherwise be filled by a European. It's also not beyond the realm of possibility that the government could insist a London-based team have a minimum number of British players.
In addition, players with criminal convictions would probably be denied working visas in the U.K. A conviction that carries a sentence of less than one year would usually preclude a player's entry for five years from the end of the sentence. A sentence of up to four years would generally mean the player would be denied entry for 10 years after the end of the sentence. Anything longer than four years would probably mean the player would be refused entry indefinitely. In other words, the Eagles would probably have to leave Michael Vick home if they played in London.
Labor laws
The two types of laws of most concern are competition laws and free movement laws. Competition laws cover much of the same matter dealt with in the U.S. under antitrust law, but free movement laws are somewhat unique to the European Union.
For example, there's no draft involving European soccer teams. That's a product of the history of those leagues, but it will probably continue as a product of EU laws.
London-based attorney Andrew Nixon of Sheridans focuses his practice on representing sports governing bodies, clubs, agencies and athletes. He says the NFL draft would probably be permissible under the competition laws, because it is collectively bargained between the owners and players. It's the same reason the NFL draft is allowed under antitrust laws in the United States.
"The trickier issue with the draft system would be that it would breach a worker's right to move freely, and the EU distinguishes between exemption under competition rules and exemption from free movement rules," Nixon said.
When the EU was formed, a treaty was enacted giving certain rights to all European Union citizens. One section of that treaty makes the free movement of workers a fundamental principle, allowing an EU citizen to move between EU countries for work without needing a work permit or having to live there for that purpose.
According to the NFLPA, the league currently has 15 players who were born in EU countries, among them Bjoern Werner (Germany), Osi Umenyiora (England) and Sebastian Janikowski (Poland). Would the presence of EU citizens be enough to apply the EU's laws to the NFL? No one knows the answer to that question.
And what if the team were technically based in the U.S. but played all of its home games in London?
"I do not know the answer if the situation was that they would effectively fly in and fly out, as it is not something that has been done before and it is untested," Nixon said. "In principle, if they just played their home games in London then they could get around it, but it would still be scrutinized."
Another question with no easy answers is whether the NFL's requirement that a player be three full years removed from high school before he is eligible for the NFL draft would run afoul of EU laws. Nixon says there are no such age restrictions in European sports, making it an issue that would be reviewed anew should the NFL seek to place a team permanently in London.
"It would in principle distort competition, and it would deny clubs the chance to hire the best players, and it would not fall within a special exemption," Nixon said. "To get around this you would expect that the NFL might need to modify some of their rules, and indeed should enter into discussions with the European Commission to seek consent to the rules, and get [direction] as to where changes may need to be made."
Although the U.K. might benefit from an NFL team in London, the EU wouldn't really benefit as a whole, giving it less incentive to revise laws or rule favorably for the NFL. Nixon and other labor law specialists in the country simply have no idea how the EU might react.
ESPN.com contacted the NFL about its strategy for placing a team permanently in London, but NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said any discussion at this point is premature.
Jim Bailey, a former NFL team executive who not only oversaw the Cleveland Browns' move to Baltimore but also was on staff when the Browns played a preseason game in London, says there's more likely to be an expansion team in London than a relocated team.
"My guess is the league would like to manage the process," said Bailey, "which would indicate to me they might prefer expansion to relocation."
The NFLPA doesn't get a vote per se in expansion to London (only the NFL owners do), but spokesman George Atallah, assistant executive director of external affairs for the NFLPA, says his organization will still have something to say about it.
"Expanding to London by definition is a change in working conditions, placing the conversation squarely in the context of collective bargaining," Atallah said.
Those working-condition issues could be anything from the practice and playing facilities, including turf conditions, to the travel involved.
Quote from: Intuition Ale Works on January 07, 2016, 10:14:03 AM
Relocating a team would be very complicated and that team would have a hard time recruiting Free Agents in addition to the other issues raised in the below article from ESPN in 2013
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Updated: September 25, 11:23 AM ET
NFL in London raises legal issues
By Kristi Dosh
ESPN.com
During the offseason, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell made waves when he discussed the possibility of placing a team permanently in London. Many fans had questions, including: Who would want to play there? What owner would want to relocate? How could the NFL fairly assemble a schedule that included travel to and from London?
But there are stumbling blocks beyond those. Here's a look at the legal issues that could complicate such a move.
Tax laws
Tax laws are vastly different in the U.K. -- so different, in fact, that some athletes have refused to compete within its borders.
First, salary, appearance fees and prize money earned while competing in the U.K. are taxed at a rate of up to 45 percent. The highest rate in the U.S. currently is 39.6 percent. Additionally, U.S. tax law only allows for a foreign tax credit at the U.S. tax rate, meaning a player wouldn't be able to get a credit for up to 5.4 percent of the tax he paid to the U.K. if he were at the maximum rates for both countries
Athletes competing in the U.K. are also taxed on global endorsement income (as they are in the U.S.). The amount is determined by dividing the number of days the athlete spends training and competing in the U.K. annually by the total number of days he trained and competed around the world. That percentage is then multiplied by the athlete's total global endorsement income to determine the amount subject to taxation. Again, the athlete might not be able to take a U.S. tax credit for the full amount, given the difference in tax rates.
Currently, NFL players who participate in a game in London have their game checks subject to U.K. taxation. However, they generally spend less than a week in the U.K., and the portion of their endorsement income that becomes subject to taxation is minimal.
But a player for a London NFL team would find the tax burden to be far greater. He might play several preseason games and up to eight regular-season games in the country and spend far more of his training and practice time overseas, increasing the portion of both his salary and endorsement income subject to taxation. Would the higher 50 percent tax rate they would incur discourage free agents from signing with the London team?
The U.K. Treasury has granted tax exemptions for athletes in the past. For example, those competing in the London Olympics and the 2011 and 2013 Champions League finals at Wembley were granted exemptions. In addition, the 2013 Olympic Anniversary Games and 2014 Commonwealth Games have earned exemptions. However, exemptions are not always granted. The Treasury has previously rejected an exemption for players competing in the ATP World Tour finals.
Financial Times reports the British parliament might consider legislation during its next session that would allow for the fast-tracking of exemptions. There seems to be a growing push in the U.K. to adjust these laws as necessary to attract sports events and athletes to the country, so there's certainly room for some adjustments to be made if lawmakers believe an NFL franchise in the U.K. is to the country's benefit.
Working visas
Another problem might be the need for working visas to play as part of a home team in London. Currently, a player needs only a passport and is admitted under a temporary working visa for "sporting visitors," granted for one-off events. However, they would no longer be able to do that if they were playing a full home schedule in London.
The first hurdle the NFL would need to overcome is the requirement that an athletic governing body in the U.K. endorse the players in their applications for working visas. Ian Robinson, manager at the immigration law firm Fragomen in London, who was previously in charge of developing economic migration policy at the U.K. Home Office, says the NFL could handle this a couple of different ways: the league could negotiate with the existing British American Football Association or it could negotiate with the government to establish its own office based in the U.K. Either way, the NFL would have to come to terms with the government, because the British American Football Association is not currently recognized by the Home Office.
"I don't expect the negotiations [for the NFL to establish its own governing body] to be waved through, because they never are," warned Robinson, "but I would imagine they'd stand a good chance of getting the endorsement. The NFL is a serious body."
Once the NFL negotiated with the British American Football Association or established its own governing body, each player for a team playing home games in London would have to be evaluated individually.
"An overarching body would look at the players the [team] wants to bring over and take a view as to whether their presence here would benefit the sport in the U.K.," Robinson said.
"It isn't inconceivable that the Home Office will ask for reassurance that the move would benefit the U.K. game as a whole, including British players or youngsters," Robinson added. "But that would be for politicians to iron out in light of the wider economic benefits of the team."
There is a long-standing practice of requiring European football teams to prove a non-European player brings something "special and different" to the U.K., which prevents teams from giving roster spots to non-Europeans unless the player has skills and abilities that justify his taking a spot that could otherwise be filled by a European. It's also not beyond the realm of possibility that the government could insist a London-based team have a minimum number of British players.
In addition, players with criminal convictions would probably be denied working visas in the U.K. A conviction that carries a sentence of less than one year would usually preclude a player's entry for five years from the end of the sentence. A sentence of up to four years would generally mean the player would be denied entry for 10 years after the end of the sentence. Anything longer than four years would probably mean the player would be refused entry indefinitely. In other words, the Eagles would probably have to leave Michael Vick home if they played in London.
Labor laws
The two types of laws of most concern are competition laws and free movement laws. Competition laws cover much of the same matter dealt with in the U.S. under antitrust law, but free movement laws are somewhat unique to the European Union.
For example, there's no draft involving European soccer teams. That's a product of the history of those leagues, but it will probably continue as a product of EU laws.
London-based attorney Andrew Nixon of Sheridans focuses his practice on representing sports governing bodies, clubs, agencies and athletes. He says the NFL draft would probably be permissible under the competition laws, because it is collectively bargained between the owners and players. It's the same reason the NFL draft is allowed under antitrust laws in the United States.
"The trickier issue with the draft system would be that it would breach a worker's right to move freely, and the EU distinguishes between exemption under competition rules and exemption from free movement rules," Nixon said.
When the EU was formed, a treaty was enacted giving certain rights to all European Union citizens. One section of that treaty makes the free movement of workers a fundamental principle, allowing an EU citizen to move between EU countries for work without needing a work permit or having to live there for that purpose.
According to the NFLPA, the league currently has 15 players who were born in EU countries, among them Bjoern Werner (Germany), Osi Umenyiora (England) and Sebastian Janikowski (Poland). Would the presence of EU citizens be enough to apply the EU's laws to the NFL? No one knows the answer to that question.
And what if the team were technically based in the U.S. but played all of its home games in London?
"I do not know the answer if the situation was that they would effectively fly in and fly out, as it is not something that has been done before and it is untested," Nixon said. "In principle, if they just played their home games in London then they could get around it, but it would still be scrutinized."
Another question with no easy answers is whether the NFL's requirement that a player be three full years removed from high school before he is eligible for the NFL draft would run afoul of EU laws. Nixon says there are no such age restrictions in European sports, making it an issue that would be reviewed anew should the NFL seek to place a team permanently in London.
"It would in principle distort competition, and it would deny clubs the chance to hire the best players, and it would not fall within a special exemption," Nixon said. "To get around this you would expect that the NFL might need to modify some of their rules, and indeed should enter into discussions with the European Commission to seek consent to the rules, and get [direction] as to where changes may need to be made."
Although the U.K. might benefit from an NFL team in London, the EU wouldn't really benefit as a whole, giving it less incentive to revise laws or rule favorably for the NFL. Nixon and other labor law specialists in the country simply have no idea how the EU might react.
ESPN.com contacted the NFL about its strategy for placing a team permanently in London, but NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said any discussion at this point is premature.
Jim Bailey, a former NFL team executive who not only oversaw the Cleveland Browns' move to Baltimore but also was on staff when the Browns played a preseason game in London, says there's more likely to be an expansion team in London than a relocated team.
"My guess is the league would like to manage the process," said Bailey, "which would indicate to me they might prefer expansion to relocation."
The NFLPA doesn't get a vote per se in expansion to London (only the NFL owners do), but spokesman George Atallah, assistant executive director of external affairs for the NFLPA, says his organization will still have something to say about it.
"Expanding to London by definition is a change in working conditions, placing the conversation squarely in the context of collective bargaining," Atallah said.
Those working-condition issues could be anything from the practice and playing facilities, including turf conditions, to the travel involved.
Luckily, St Louis isn't subject to UK tax laws. At least not at the moment.
Quote"For the record, I was just winding everyone up. I cannot see into the future and have no idea what will happen. That said, I certainly believe Khan would relocate the team as soon as the right offer came along." Didn't you previously take people to task about reading comprehension? The point was that as long as there are cities with more money than sense, the possibility of the Jaguars relocating will be a concern.
Oh, comments laced with dripping sarcasm, sorry, don't see that much here.
Khan is not going anywhere, he has a CASH COW here in Jax, and the money he puts into the stadium is still less than the cost of his new yacht. He has the perfect partner here, as long as the city continues to match him dollar for dollar.
St. Louis screwed themselves, saying no to the NFL owner, now twice. No matter how much money they have, none of the 32 owners will want to touch that for the 3rd time, for a long while. Heck, AB is no longer a player in the city, having been purchased by the Wal-Mart of beer companies, Inbev.
^Plus, who knows what happens when the lease is up, but for now, London is probably much more valuable to the NFL as a looming threat than as the actual home of an existing franchise. It's hard to fathom how much public money was dumped into stadium projects as a result of the L.A. relocation threat. The league needs a new bogeyman.
Quote from: KenFSU on January 07, 2016, 11:56:57 AM
^Plus, who knows what happens when the lease is up, but for now, London is probably much more valuable to the NFL as a looming threat than as the actual home of an existing franchise. It's hard to fathom how much public money was dumped into stadium projects as a result of the L.A. relocation threat. The league needs a new bogeyman.
Yeah, pretty much.
So - We can revisit this thread in 20 years. If the Jaguars are still in Jacksonville, I will apologize for my short-sightedness.
That said, I don't see the Jaguars moving to London and never have thought that was a real possibility. I could be wrong. But I think Khan's love affair with London will eventually fade - probably once his boring soccer team drop into League One.
The only cities I really could see as viable relocation candidates are Los Angeles and (if it loses the Chargers and builds a new stadium) San Diego.
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). San Diego is a higher growth area and has only one other, not terribly popular, pro team.
People talk up San Antonio as a relocation candidate, but the NFL dismissed San Antonio back in 1993 because the Alamo Dome didn't have NFL-caliber amenities. It has size going for it, but that's it. If San Antonio upgraded the Alamo Dome, it (especially combined with Austin) certainly has the requisite size and income to support an NFL team...but I doubt it would. The Cowboys have a death grip on most of Texas and even train in San Antonio.
Every other city with the size and football interest to support the NFL doesn't have anything remotely resembling an NFL grade stadium and would to build from scratch, which is seemingly prohibitively more expensive than renovating an existing stadium occasionally.
The one other city I could see as a threat? Mexico City. I don't think a Canadian city would pursue the NFL for heritage and CFL loyalty reasons. And exchange rate/tax issues have always hurt the Canadian franchises in the NBA and MLB.
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.
Quote from: spuwho on January 07, 2016, 12:48:00 PM
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.
Quote from: KenFSU on January 07, 2016, 12:54:38 PM
Quote from: spuwho on January 07, 2016, 12:48:00 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: spuwho on January 07, 2016, 01:05:25 PM
Quote from: KenFSU on January 07, 2016, 12:54:38 PM
Quote from: spuwho on January 07, 2016, 12:48:00 PM
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
Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on January 07, 2016, 12:36:16 PM
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.
Quote from: Adam White on January 07, 2016, 08:56:59 AM
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
Quote from: I-10east on January 07, 2016, 03:12:23 PM
Quote from: Adam White on January 07, 2016, 08:56:59 AM
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.
Quote from: Todd_Parker on January 07, 2016, 03:07:33 PM
Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on January 07, 2016, 12:36:16 PM
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.
Quote from: Adam White on January 07, 2016, 03:35:37 PM
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.
Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on January 07, 2016, 04:35:42 PM
Quote from: Todd_Parker on January 07, 2016, 03:07:33 PM
Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on January 07, 2016, 12:36:16 PM
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.
Quote from: copperfiend on January 07, 2016, 02:06:25 PM
Quote from: spuwho on January 07, 2016, 01:05:25 PM
Quote from: KenFSU on January 07, 2016, 12:54:38 PM
Quote from: spuwho on January 07, 2016, 12:48:00 PM
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!
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.
^Well, and the Bay Area. For now.
Quote from: coredumped on January 13, 2016, 10:09:03 AM
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.:
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: coredumped on January 13, 2016, 10:09:03 AM
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.
I think it is a huge mistake building a 100,000 seat stadium in LA. I can't believe they are doing that. What a waste and what a joke.
Quote from: Tacachale on January 13, 2016, 10:18:44 AM
^Well, and the Bay Area. For now.
Might as well throw DC and Baltimore in there as well. Although the census may refer to them as separate MSAs, technically their downtowns are only 40 miles apart. That's a shorter drive than the trip in Jax from Baldwin to Jax Beach.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 13, 2016, 10:20:53 AM
Quote from: coredumped on January 13, 2016, 10:09:03 AM
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.
While we're counting CSAs, might as well note that LA's is close to 19 million. Point still being, they can support two teams.
Quote from: Steve on January 13, 2016, 10:22:20 AM
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.
Well there are a ton of Chargers fans in LA already. Probably true for Raiders as well.
Quote from: Dapperdan on January 13, 2016, 10:23:21 AM
I think it is a huge mistake building a 100,000 seat stadium in LA. I can't believe they are doing that. What a waste and what a joke.
At least it's privately funded.
Quote from: Steve on January 13, 2016, 10:22:20 AM
Quote from: coredumped on January 13, 2016, 10:09:03 AM
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.
Yes, teams rarely if ever move because of "support". They move because they can't get the stadium deals they want. It was the case in LA in the 90s, when the Rams' owner even blamed the stadium for losing games, and it's the case now, when we've got three cities that won't/can't cough up a billion dollars to make their teams happy. What's funny is that LA won't do it either, but the NFL is so fixated on returning to LA that it's become the one place they'll pay their own way to get into.
LA can absolutely support two (or more) NFL teams, just as New York and the Bay Area do. But a lot of teams are reluctant to that, as the "second team in" often becomes the second banana in the market. Even though they're among the most prominent teams in the country, the Jets, Mets, Angels, White Sox et al don't have the power in their own market that their big sisters. Often times smaller cities will work harder than big cities will for their second teams, hence why so many teams that were historically in bigger markets have gone to smaller ones.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 13, 2016, 10:33:23 AM
Quote from: Dapperdan on January 13, 2016, 10:23:21 AM
I think it is a huge mistake building a 100,000 seat stadium in LA. I can't believe they are doing that. What a waste and what a joke.
At least it's privately funded.
LOL.
Stadium perhaps, what about the rest?
^I was referring to the comment about the stadium.
(https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/12400636_10208730057392604_6187214601648920025_n.jpg?oh=b036ad480aeb60845b43ea343b7c9282&oe=5702D060)
Quote from: Dapperdan on January 13, 2016, 10:23:21 AM
I think it is a huge mistake building a 100,000 seat stadium in LA. I can't believe they are doing that. What a waste and what a joke.
Semantics, but 70,000 seats will be the normal game-day configuration.
Expanded configuration, which amounts to 30,000 standing room only tickets to be used for the Super Bowl, is 100,000.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 13, 2016, 10:33:23 AM
Quote from: Dapperdan on January 13, 2016, 10:23:21 AM
I think it is a huge mistake building a 100,000 seat stadium in LA. I can't believe they are doing that. What a waste and what a joke.
At least it's privately funded.
My guess once some of the details about the facility come out, it will be a facility that can seat UP TO 100k, like EverBank can seat up to 83,000 once you add temporary seats. They likely want that high of a number for a super bowl.
Now that the blackout rule has been stricken down, there's no real incentive for teams or cities to build stadiums smaller than they want, except to control demand to raise prices or to look purtier on TV.
Quote from: Tacachale on January 13, 2016, 10:49:26 AM
Quote from: Steve on January 13, 2016, 10:22:20 AM
Quote from: coredumped on January 13, 2016, 10:09:03 AM
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.
Yes, teams rarely if ever move because of "support". They move because they can't get the stadium deals they want. It was the case in LA in the 90s, when the Rams' owner even blamed the stadium for losing games, and it's the case now, when we've got three cities that won't/can't cough up a billion dollars to make their teams happy. What's funny is that LA won't do it either, but the NFL is so fixated on returning to LA that it's become the one place they'll pay their own way to get into.
LA can absolutely support two (or more) NFL teams, just as New York and the Bay Area do. But a lot of teams are reluctant to that, as the "second team in" often becomes the second banana in the market. Even though they're among the most prominent teams in the country, the Jets, Mets, Angels, White Sox et al don't have the power in their own market that their big sisters. Often times smaller cities will work harder than big cities will for their second teams, hence why so many teams that were historically in bigger markets have gone to smaller ones.
Well, especially playing in the same building without any history in the area puts the Chargers at a disadvantage. If the Raiders went to LA, I think they would be pretty successful because they already have a fan base but not the Chargers. The Jets and Giants built up their fan bases separately to begin because the Jets/Mets played at Shea and the Giants/Yankees played at Yankee Stadium so the fan base for the Jets is in Queens and Long Island while the Giants retained most of Manhattan and the Bronx. The Giants fan base is also larger because they have been around forever.
Apparently everyone was wowed by Kroenke's plan for a stadium because it was so well thought out. An example of that is the 100,000 expandable stadium for Super Bowls, College Football Championships, and other huge events. That is called maximizing profit.
Quote from: FlaBoy on January 13, 2016, 01:27:42 PM
Apparently everyone was wowed by Kroenke's plan for a stadium because it was so well thought out. An example of that is the 100,000 expandable stadium for Super Bowls, College Football Championships, and other huge events. That is called maximizing profit.
What it says to me is that the league believed far more in the Kroenke plan than the Raiders/Chargers plan. They were willing to go with probably the most disruptive option in order to get it done, and were willing to risk losing out on their two-team solution.
I just got off the phone with a buddy/colleague in LA (in Newport south of LA) who is a lifelong Rams fan as he went to Rams games when they were in LA. There are a lot of Rams fans in SoCal, as there are many Raiders fans.
For Oakland, the problem isn't the fan base. The Raiders fans are some of the best in the nation, the most loyal, etc. They are mostly concentrated in the East Bay. Now the problem is the owner and the City of Oakland and the County of Alameda. These 3 parties are pissing off fans and not getting any deals done to improve or rebuild the stadium and infrastructure to it (though it is already right off of a major highway and connected by BART).
The Chargers will likely announce their move to LA within a few weeks, by the SuperBowl. They've burned too many bridges to stay in SD and they need to move. Nobody will then be able to backfill an SD team for a long time. The Raiders then have a few years to plan out their move, if any, to another city.
I have no faith that Mark Davis and Oakland/Alameda can put together a deal to keep them.
Unfortunately, Oakland needs the Raiders because it is the key to unlocking redevelopment potential for that depressed side of town. Without the Raiders, that whole section of Oakland will continue to suck. Oakland is full of incompetents. Mark Davis has never had a lot of fans.
Inglewood, where the Rams will play, is also not the best part of LA, and it isn't along the highway, meaning fans will have to drive into and through the hood-ish area and out. But Kroenke is ponying up to build the Shangri-La of football stadiums, so it's a bit different.
Quote from: simms3 on January 13, 2016, 04:26:56 PM
Unfortunately, Oakland needs the Raiders because it is the key to unlocking redevelopment potential for that depressed side of town. Without the Raiders, that whole section of Oakland will continue to suck. Oakland is full of incompetents. Mark Davis has never had a lot of fans.
I feel bad for the A's in all of this. They have been the real victims since their fate has been tied to the Raiders for reasons I'm too lazy to spell out here.
The Chargers still have options in San Diego, and even if they do go to LA, apparently they can do so as a tennant, meaning they could move back later if a deal gets done. The Raiders have some options too, but staying in Oakland seems tied to little else but the fact that they're 3rd in line to move to LA.
Quote from: Tacachale on January 13, 2016, 04:09:02 PM
Quote from: FlaBoy on January 13, 2016, 01:27:42 PM
Apparently everyone was wowed by Kroenke's plan for a stadium because it was so well thought out. An example of that is the 100,000 expandable stadium for Super Bowls, College Football Championships, and other huge events. That is called maximizing profit.
What it says to me is that the league believed far more in the Kroenke plan than the Raiders/Chargers plan. They were willing to go with probably the most disruptive option in order to get it done, and were willing to risk losing out on their two-team solution.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/13/owners-were-blown-away-by-differences-between-inglewood-and-carson/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/13/owners-were-blown-away-by-differences-between-inglewood-and-carson/)
Kroenke had the far superior product.
"As one person who witnessed the presentations told PFT, the owners were "blown away" by Kroenke's proposal, which was presented to ownership by Rams COO Kevin Demoff.
"Stan's proposal was like watching Star Wars," the source said, adding that the Carson proposal "was like watching a home movie from the '70s."
^It really sucks that Kroenke is willing to spend a billion dollars in LA when he could have spent a fraction of that in St. Louis and gotten pretty much everything he wanted.
Kroenke wants the money a stadium in LA will bring outside of the Rams. He's investing for the future.
Quote from: Tacachale on January 13, 2016, 04:44:05 PM
The Chargers still have options in San Diego, and even if they do go to LA, apparently they can do so as a tennant, meaning they could move back later if a deal gets done. The Raiders have some options too, but staying in Oakland seems tied to little else but the fact that they're 3rd in line to move to LA.
Quote from: Tacachale on January 13, 2016, 04:46:38 PM
^It really sucks that Kroenke is willing to spend a billion dollars in LA when he could have spent a fraction of that in St. Louis and gotten pretty much everything he wanted.
Yes and yes. But by becoming a tenant, the Chargers will not be unlocking even half of their potential value. Also, the value of a team isn't tied to its fan base so much anymore or the ability to get the host city to spend a little here and there or to cut deals. The value is in sponsorships, advertisement rights, etc. A lot of this is tied to the corporate base of a city and the city's media market, both of which are tied to great degrees to population and economic power (GDP). Compared to LA, STL has a tiny corporate base and teeny tiny media market. Population and economy are hardly growing to the same extent, companies aren't moving to STL, etc etc.
LA has a media market that is 2nd in size in the US (17.553 million people to NYC's 20.906 million and ahead of Chicago's 9.528 million) and a corporate base fueling the country's 2nd largest economy ($1 trillion SoCal economy). STL's TV market is only 3.17 million people. For comparison, Jacksonville's is 1.719 million. Green Bay's is 1.114 million people, so that isn't likely as small as some people's preconceived notions.
Become a tenant here and your value increases. Become an actual incorporated entity here, and your value maximizes (look at what the Clippers and Dodgers recently sold for).
Things that really help in addition to sheer size and purchasing/sponsorship power - winning games/seasons, population and economic growth
STL comparatively has little going for it. San Diego also - growing relatively slowly and faces some of the stiffest economic headwinds in the state.
Bay Area, where Oakland is, is also a very large population center/media market (5th largest at 7.206 million, and Sacramento is another 3.783 million that swing to the Bay - Sac is a larger TV market than San Diego since it has all of northern CA) and 3rd largest economy at around $750Bn, and this whole area is the state's fastest growing area when including the 4 major metros - the central valley like Modesto and Fresno are fast becoming exurbs of the Bay Area and are the state's fastest growing cities. These aren't the issues for the Raiders - the support and numbers for a 2nd team are there. The issue is in the stadium and support from the city/county in dealing with promises and their end of the bargain to provide a certain level of infrastructure support. Mark Davis hasn't helped as owner.
I think Oakland could go either way - over the course of a few years something could be worked out, or they could leave.
Quote from: simms3 on January 13, 2016, 07:59:29 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on January 13, 2016, 04:44:05 PM
The Chargers still have options in San Diego, and even if they do go to LA, apparently they can do so as a tennant, meaning they could move back later if a deal gets done. The Raiders have some options too, but staying in Oakland seems tied to little else but the fact that they're 3rd in line to move to LA.
Quote from: Tacachale on January 13, 2016, 04:46:38 PM
^It really sucks that Kroenke is willing to spend a billion dollars in LA when he could have spent a fraction of that in St. Louis and gotten pretty much everything he wanted.
Yes and yes. But by becoming a tenant, the Chargers will not be unlocking even half of their potential value. Also, the value of a team isn't tied to its fan base so much anymore or the ability to get the host city to spend a little here and there or to cut deals. The value is in sponsorships, advertisement rights, etc. A lot of this is tied to the corporate base of a city and the city's media market, both of which are tied to great degrees to population and economic power (GDP). Compared to LA, STL has a tiny corporate base and teeny tiny media market. Population and economy are hardly growing to the same extent, companies aren't moving to STL, etc etc.
LA has a media market that is 2nd in size in the US (17.553 million people to NYC's 20.906 million and ahead of Chicago's 9.528 million) and a corporate base fueling the country's 2nd largest economy ($1 trillion SoCal economy). STL's TV market is only 3.17 million people. For comparison, Jacksonville's is 1.719 million. Green Bay's is 1.114 million people, so that isn't likely as small as some people's preconceived notions.
Become a tenant here and your value increases. Become an actual incorporated entity here, and your value maximizes (look at what the Clippers and Dodgers recently sold for).
Things that really help in addition to sheer size and purchasing/sponsorship power - winning games/seasons, population and economic growth
STL comparatively has little going for it. San Diego also - growing relatively slowly and faces some of the stiffest economic headwinds in the state.
Bay Area, where Oakland is, is also a very large population center/media market (5th largest at 7.206 million, and Sacramento is another 3.783 million that swing to the Bay - Sac is a larger TV market than San Diego since it has all of northern CA) and 3rd largest economy at around $750Bn, and this whole area is the state's fastest growing area when including the 4 major metros - the central valley like Modesto and Fresno are fast becoming exurbs of the Bay Area and are the state's fastest growing cities. These aren't the issues for the Raiders - the support and numbers for a 2nd team are there. The issue is in the stadium and support from the city/county in dealing with promises and their end of the bargain to provide a certain level of infrastructure support. Mark Davis hasn't helped as owner.
I think Oakland could go either way - over the course of a few years something could be worked out, or they could leave.
All about the corporate money. That is also why Shad Khan has a decent deal now in Jax because he is really the only show in town here. In STL, for example, you have to split that corporate base with the Cards and the Blues.
Quote from: FlaBoy on January 14, 2016, 08:33:24 AM
All about the corporate money.
Yes, at the end of the day, it's a business.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 14, 2016, 09:34:10 AM
Quote from: FlaBoy on January 14, 2016, 08:33:24 AM
All about the corporate money.
Yes, at the end of the day, it's a business.
And teams like the Jags, Buffalo, Green Bay, etc... that are in the smaller markets benefit the most from this.
Now that the NFL is back in one of the largest (if not the largest) media markets in the country, that grows the TV package deal significantly. The same TV money that is split 32 ways across the NFL.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 14, 2016, 11:14:04 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on January 14, 2016, 09:34:10 AM
Quote from: FlaBoy on January 14, 2016, 08:33:24 AM
All about the corporate money.
Yes, at the end of the day, it's a business.
And teams like the Jags, Buffalo, Green Bay, etc... that are in the smaller markets benefit the most from this.
Now that the NFL is back in one of the largest (if not the largest) media markets in the country, that grows the TV package deal significantly. The same TV money that is split 32 ways across the NFL.
It honestly won't grow the TV package much. Maybe the LA Rams will cut a third tier rights contract with a Fox Sports Net or whoever that brings in some revenue but the NFL pulls great ratings everywhere, with or without a team.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insight-idUSKCN0VC0EP?utm_source=twitter (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insight-idUSKCN0VC0EP?utm_source=twitter)
St. Louis taxpayers on the hook for $144 million in debt and maintenance
Quote from: vicupstate on February 03, 2016, 12:10:00 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insight-idUSKCN0VC0EP?utm_source=twitter (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insight-idUSKCN0VC0EP?utm_source=twitter)
St. Louis taxpayers on the hook for $144 million in debt and maintenance
From the article, "NFL stadiums are primarily designed for one thing - eight home games a year - and don't necessarily adapt well to alternate uses." Which is why the renovations being done to Everbank (also designed by Populous) make even more sense.
http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/11/18/super-bowl-100-stadium
QuoteThe venue of the future, he suggests, will hit more than one need in a city: "Could the building serve a dual purpose? Integrate the community in recreation and entertainment?" Populous's predictors say yes...
they could have said no.
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on February 03, 2016, 12:47:39 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on February 03, 2016, 12:10:00 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insight-idUSKCN0VC0EP?utm_source=twitter (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insight-idUSKCN0VC0EP?utm_source=twitter)
St. Louis taxpayers on the hook for $144 million in debt and maintenance
What?!? NO WAY. The NFL and an owner fucking over their home city via a ridiculously one-sided stadium deal, all in the interest of lining their pockets? I am absolutely shocked. I mean, next thing I know you'll be telling me billionaire Shad Khan is fleecing the city to enrich homself at the expense of taxpayers.
I think we all know who the real victim in this relocation mess was...
http://larrybrownsports.com/football/stan-kroenke-victim/288850
The Billionaire owner!
Quote from: vicupstate on February 03, 2016, 12:10:00 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insight-idUSKCN0VC0EP?utm_source=twitter (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insight-idUSKCN0VC0EP?utm_source=twitter)
St. Louis taxpayers on the hook for $144 million in debt and maintenance
Another reason I think the NFL is reaching its peak earning power in the US.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 03, 2016, 12:40:56 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on February 03, 2016, 12:10:00 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insight-idUSKCN0VC0EP?utm_source=twitter (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insight-idUSKCN0VC0EP?utm_source=twitter)
St. Louis taxpayers on the hook for $144 million in debt and maintenance
From the article, "NFL stadiums are primarily designed for one thing - eight home games a year - and don't necessarily adapt well to alternate uses." Which is why the renovations being done to Everbank (also designed by Populous) make even more sense.
http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/11/18/super-bowl-100-stadium
+100
The people that are comparing Stan Kroenke to Shad Khan are way off base. One owner is investing heavily into Everbank Field, the city, even outside the realm of football. The other owner took advantage of a bad contract that was made by an incompetent city's government; It certainly didn't help that STL basically made a more melancholy version of the Astrodome, while everyone else (JAX, CAR, TEN, HOU etc etc) were building open air stadiums/retractable roof stadiums.
Quote from: Todd_Parker on February 03, 2016, 01:26:20 PM
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on February 03, 2016, 12:47:39 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on February 03, 2016, 12:10:00 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insight-idUSKCN0VC0EP?utm_source=twitter (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insight-idUSKCN0VC0EP?utm_source=twitter)
St. Louis taxpayers on the hook for $144 million in debt and maintenance
What?!? NO WAY. The NFL and an owner fucking over their home city via a ridiculously one-sided stadium deal, all in the interest of lining their pockets? I am absolutely shocked. I mean, next thing I know you'll be telling me billionaire Shad Khan is fleecing the city to enrich homself at the expense of taxpayers.
I think we all know who the real victim in this relocation mess was...
http://larrybrownsports.com/football/stan-kroenke-victim/288850
The Billionaire owner!
I read the entire interview in the LA Times that Larry Brown Sports refers to.
His sincerity is barely an atom thick. The interview mentions when he vetted the LA site, he says "there was no going back". This was years ago, which means his mind was made up ages ago. He shouldn't have put STL through it is all I gotta say. How much did they spend hiring consultants and architects to prepare a proposal? A lot.
Prime example of why many cities will NOT want the NFL ever.
If it takes a billion USD to host 8-10 NFL games a year, and perhaps 2 or 3 college games, we have gone too far.
The only teams that needs a stadium replacement anytime soon are the Chargers, Raiders, Redskins (Snyder wants a new stadium) and maybe Buffalo. Any of the other 27 stadiums that aren't totally up to par are adaptable enough for renovations. The whole "every NFL team will want a brand new 2 billion dollar stadium" thing is so overblown.