Other NFL News

[thelakelander]

I think you all mean Buffalo instead of Detroit. Detroit is four or five times larger than Jax, market-wise.

[Tacachale]

Right now the LA boogieman is being used to keep cities in line. We'd be hearing much less about teams relocating if the NFL weren't so dead set on getting into that market.

You may be right - but I think LA will get a team sooner or later. As far as the making money aspect goes, that's one the main reasons mooted for the Chargers possible move.

I think the Jaguars have played up the rumors as well in order to prize more money or concessions from the city.

The Jaguars may not move: but there is no mistaking that they are on the short list of teams that might move to LA. And if LA is going to get a team, either they're going to poach one or the league will have to expand again.

As far as other markets getting the team - that's probably not as likely. Sure, I can think of a few, but the LA issue is far more of a threat. Once LA gets a team (and assuming it's not the Jaguars), I don't think relocation will be anywhere near as much of an issue.

That said, it will always rear its ugly head whenever the team is struggling to sell tickets and the games are being blacked out. Especially if another city with a larger market loses its team to LA.

^I agree with you by and large. I think LA will get a team at some point - hopefully the NFL just expands, but if not, they'll be taking someone's team.

Where I disagree with you is on money-versus-stadium issues. Make no mistake, the Chargers debacle is about the stadium. There was no talk of them moving, despite LA being vacant for years, despite their blackouts, until they started to come up on the end of their lease and the team wanted a new stadium. If there's a "short list of teams that might move to LA", it's whatever teams are experiencing stadium issues at the time. Jacksonville might be on a "long list", but other, more established teams are much more vulnerable than we are.

Excluding LA, the competition is much reduced. Once the LA problem is handled it'll be back to the status quo - cities will play musical chairs with the existing teams by offering better deals, there may be a move here and there, but little will change. Only a handful of them are bigger than Jacksonville, however. In the 2010 Census, the Jacksonville metro area was the country's 40th largest, with 1,345,596 people. It had also grown nearly 20% in ten years.

[Tacachale]

That's an issue with all major league sports in general. They're able to get away with it because they have monopolies over their product. Without any competition, they can artificially limit the number of teams on the market, meaning franchises can get cities to pony up huge amounts of taxpayer dollars for the privilege of having them there, and threaten to leave if they don't get their way.

Yes, but not entirely. Leagues with promotion/relegation don't generally suffer from that. For example, the Premier League may be able to limit its member clubs to 20, but three get relegated and three get promoted into the league yearly. Theoretically, a professional team could start out in the lowest league of the pyramid and work its way to the top.

Clearly we don't have that system in the NFL, but I think promotion/relegation would lead to a much more exciting football season.

That's true, I was referring to North American major leagues. The promotion-relegation system has its own problems, but it's much less likely that you'll wake up one day and find that your team has skipped town.

[duvaldude08]

I think you all mean Buffalo instead of Detroit. Detroit is four or five times larger than Jax, market-wise.

I forgot about Buffalo. And I was thinking Detroit, but I was thinking about their city population and not the metro, so right about that one.

[duvaldude08]

Post Manning era begins with The Colts losing 4,000 season ticket holder and this may just be the beginning. There is no telling how their regular ticket sales are going to look once the season starts.  Thats why I have always been against building a team around a person and was why I didnt want Tebow in Jax. As soon as that person is gone, so are their fans. Im sure this puts them in pickle because they have not had to worry about tickets sales for atleast a decade. Looks like the band wagoners have shown their true colors. SMH

Colts struggling to sell tickets

Posted by Michael David Smith on April 18, 2012, 12:23 PM EDT

Getty Images
At the box office in Indianapolis, the future promise of Andrew Luck is not enough to overcome the departure of Peyton Manning and the stench of a terrible 2011 season.

For the first time in a decade, Colts season tickets are available, as thousands of people who had season tickets last year decided not to renew this year. Colts Chief Operating Officer Pete Ward told the Indianapolis Star about 4,000 season tickets will go on sale, and that it’s not particularly surprising given what happened last year.

“It’s not unexpected considering the things that have transpired, [the team] going 2-14 and the departure of Peyton,” Ward said. “In all honesty, we thought the economy would have affected us more than it has to this point, and then there’s the fact we’re one of the NFL’s smaller markets.”

In Manning’s prime years, the Colts had a season-ticket waiting list of about 10,000 people, and that list hardly ever moved because season-ticket holders almost always renewed. This year about 13 percent of last year’s season-ticket holders decided not to come back.

If Luck (assuming he’s the first overall pick) gets off to a hot start as a rookie quarterback, the Colts should be able to continue their current sellout streak, which goes back 79 games to 2003. But if the Colts are as bad this year as they were last year, TV blackouts could be coming in Indianapolis.

[I-10east]

^^^Exactly. All bandwagoners are is smoke and mirrors. The all so typical 'college minded' types that say stupid sh*t like "I wanna root for the Jags, but all they do is lose, and I don't wanna pay money to see a loser" blah blah blah. People like that aren't fans, and I couldn't care less if they ever step foot into Everbank Field. And to the #15 Jets jersey wearers, NYJ fan can definitely tell the difference between fakes, and true Jets fans, so they don't believe you, you need more people.

[Keith-N-Jax]

I dont think we need to be talking about other team tickets issues, remember how we hate when Jax is brought up all the time. All teams have bandwagon fans otherwise there would be far more empty stadiums.

[duvaldude08]

I dont think we need to be talking about other team tickets issues, remember how we hate when Jax is brought up all the time. All teams have bandwagon fans otherwise there would be far more empty stadiums.

Right were just talking about bandwagon fans. Not taking joy in someones elses ticket issues.

[I-10east]

All teams have bandwagon fans otherwise there would be far more empty stadiums.

True, all I'm saying is the key is to have more REAL fans the stadium, than the ones that will only come under a special set of circumstances like the fans of visiting teams, and bandwagoners; That's the difference between having waiting lists, and keeping track of the fuel gauge every week. 

[BridgeTroll]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/19/10-things-to-know-about-the-vikings-stadium-situation/

10 things to know about the Vikings stadium situation
Posted by Mike Florio on April 19, 2012, 11:55 PM EDT

With the situation in Minnesota going from simmer to full boil over the past few days, and with Commissioner Roger Goodell and Steelers owner Art Rooney II, chair of the league’s stadium committee, planning to meet with legislative leaders on Friday, now is as good a time as any to get up to speed regarding a controversy that could result in a relocation of the Vikings, only a year after the 50th anniversary of their arrival to the NFL.

So here are 10 things to know, in a question-and-answer format.  (Why do it that way?  Because we want to.)

What’s wrong with the Metrodome?

It has been regarded as a given for years that the Metrodome is outdated, and that it can’t be modernized in a manner that unlocks the high-end revenue streams that will keep the Vikings competitive with other franchises.  Even though the Vikings have used the 30-year-old stadium roughly 300 times, the team believes that renovation isn’t an option.  No effort to contradict that claim has ever gained any serious traction in Minnesota.

Didn’t I read last month about a deal to build a new stadium?

You did.  But the agreement for a “People’s Stadium” represented only an understanding between the team, Governor Mark Dayton, Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, and legislative leaders.  The deal calls for a $975 million facility, which would be built with $398 million from the state, $150 million from Minneapolis, and $427 million from the Vikings.  It still needs to be approved by the Legislature, and by the Minneapolis City Council.  For now, the proposed stadium bill died in a House committee on Monday night, and it has seen no progress at all in the Minnesota Senate.

The Vikings’ reaction to the current failure of the bill to even get a full legislative vote â€" the team says “there is no next year” â€" and the NFL’s direct involvement in negotiations represent a last-ditch effort to revive the deal that previously was reached.

What are the Vikings’ options?

If the stadium bill fails, the Vikings have to decide whether to try again, perhaps with a greater private contribution and/or a cheaper stadium.  If, as it appears, they aren’t inclined to try, owner Zygi Wilf can then try to move the team to a new city, sell the team to someone who would later apply for permission to move the team, or sell the team to someone who would keep the team in Minnesota.

Relocation could occur, with league approval, because the Vikings currently have no lease at the Metrodome.  In fact, if a decision to relocate after 2012 comes soon, the impact on the relationship between Minnesota and the Vikings could make it difficult for the Vikings and the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission to work out a one-year lease.  And no one at this point knows what would happen next.

Since there’s no lease, can the Vikings just pick up and move?

No.  Art Modell tried that in 1995, creating a huge mess that resulted in the Browns names and colors and records being left in Cleveland and a commitment to an expansion franchise.  The Vikings already are following the steps outlined in the league’s relocation policy, which requires a team to “diligently [engage] in good faith efforts” to “obtain a satisfactory resolution of its stadium needs” before informing the league of the existence of a “stalemate.”

The fact that the league directly is involved in the negotiations suggests that the Vikings have indeed informed the league that a “stalemate” exists.  If the situation can’t be resolved, the Vikings can then provide formal notice of an intention to relocate, sparking a process that could eventually culminate in a vote by the full ownership.  If 24 of the 32 owners agree, the move will be approved.

Along the way, the other owners would impose a transfer fee on the Vikings, which would be recommended by the Commissioner based on factors like the income streams in the new location, the income streams in the old location, the expenses in the new and old location, the differences between the new and old stadium, the demographics of the new and old markets.  It’s believed that a relocation to Los Angeles would result in a nine-figure transfer fee.

Would the Vikings leave behind the team name, logos, colors, and records?

Probably not.  As mentioned above, the deal to keep the Browns in Cleveland resulted from Art Modell’s unconventional, unilateral effort to move.  Also, the NFL planned to expand from 30 to 32 teams at the time the Browns moves to Baltimore.  The NFL currently doesn’t plan to expand, especially not in North America.

Most important, Minnesota wouldn’t get an expansion team without a new stadium.  And the reluctance to build a new stadium is what could cause the Vikings to leave.  So if they’re not going to build a new stadium now, there’s no reason to think they’ll do it later.

In other words, no matter how poorly the nickname may fit with the team’s next location, the Vikings will most likely remain the Vikings.

Why have the Vikings suddenly become so aggressive about possibly moving?

The Vikings had practiced patience for years.  Some think that the “Minnesota Nice” approach was selected under the theory that it would work better than a more blunt, matter-of-fact, anti-Field of Dreams “if you don’t build it, we will leave” strategy.  Others believe the Vikings simply wanted the media to do the team’s dirty work, reading the tea leaves and supplying the “or else” without the team having to do it.

The truth is that the language of the relocation policy, which expressly requires good-faith efforts to resolve the situation, forced the Vikings to try to get a new stadium deal without making threats or being unreasonable.  But to the extent that folks in Minnesota government believe that the Vikings haven’t taken a strong stand because they’ll eventually kick more and more (and more) money onto the table until the two circles of the Venn diagram kiss, a league source with knowledge of the dynamics explained to PFT on Thursday that Zygi Wilf, a successful real estate developer, can’t afford to cave when dealing with a public body; if he does, the public bodies with whom he routinely deals in other contexts will pounce on that high-profile show of weakness.

Why does the NFL build new stadiums with public money?

Because it can.

Some call it leverage.  Others call it extortion.  As NFL executive V.P. Eric Grubman told PFT Live on Thursday, the league regards it as competition.

Regardless, if one place won’t kick in significant public money to keep the NFL, someone else will kick in significant public money to get the NFL, either directly through cash contributions or indirectly through tax credits and other incentives.  Or through that Private Seat Licenses and/or higher ticket prices that a larger metropolitan area has the population density (i.e., enough really rich people) to support.

Notwithstanding the label applied, it’s a basic business reality of dealing with the most popular sports league in America.  With 32 teams and little or no chances at expansion, places that don’t have an NFL team but that want an NFL team will have to target an NFL team that already has a home.

Should public money be used to build NFL stadiums?

That’s for the people of a given city/state and their elected representatives to decide.  Public money gets spent on all sorts of things.  Sometimes, it’s a good investment.  Sometimes, it isn’t.

The presence of the NFL carries with it prestige and national legitimacy, along with an influx in local hotel, parking, and restaurant revenue on game days.  If that’s important to a given area and public money is necessary to make that happen, then the use of public money can be justified â€" especially if the facility will attract non-football events like concerts and conventions and a Final Four and other major activities.

Would a new Vikings stadium host a Super Bowl?

Probably, but the NFL can’t commit to that in advance.  Only the owners can award Super Bowls; that said, a habit has emerged over the past 35 years.  A new domed stadium (or an open-air venue in a warm-weather location . . . or New Jersey) results in a Super Bowl, if the city otherwise has the infrastructure to host the event (or, in the case of Jacksonville, even if it doesn’t).  The Metrodome hosted Super Bowl XXVI, the Silverdome and Ford Field in Detroit each got a Super Bowl.  Most recently, Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis hosted Super Bowl XLVI.

The money and the prestige coming from the hosting of a Super Bowl would help justify a large chunk of the public money devoted to the project, if the people in Minnesota choose to do that.

Where is this heading?

At this point, it’s unclear.  But the NFL and the Vikings will push for an answer now, before the current legislative sessions ends.  And the league and the team are prepared to interpret no answer as a “no” answer.

The biggest problem with the current deal arises from the effort to avoid the Minneapolis City Charter, which requires a public vote for any contribution in excess of $10 million to a sports facility.  The House committee that recently killed the deal was troubled by the apparent circumvention of the charter provision.  Even if the stadium bill becomes law and the Minneapolis City Council officially signs off on the plan, any taxpayer in Minneapolis could challenge in court the funding mechanism as a failure to comply with the charter.

And so, just as the Governor and the Mayor of Minneapolis and the legislative leaders underestimated the willingness of the Legislature to reject their deal now, the folks who came up with this plan possibly have given too little consideration to the possibility that a judge could kill it later.

The simple reality seems to be that the people in Minnesota either don’t want to kick in enough money to get it done, or they don’t realize that the NFL is serious about leaving.  If it’s the former, that’s their prerogative.  If it’s the latter, they need to wake up, now.

   

[Tacachale]

^This is the height of outrage. A monopoly extorting its own exceptionally loyal fans for hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars. Absolutely ludicrous.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I posted this to FB last night:

While I'm thinking about it.... Senator Scott Dibble has it right, sort of.

“I share your unease about the Vikings’ threats to leave Minnesota, but I remain concerned about spending scarce public resources on a project that is too expensive, could be largely privately financed, and adds no net new economic activity to our region or state (as has been repeatedly proven by economic studies of sp...orts stadium subsidies),” Sen. Dibble writes. “The Vikings have asked for the single largest taxpayer subsidy for any professional sports stadium in recent U.S. history, while at the same time refusing to disclose financial information that is required of all other projects receiving taxpayer money. Elected officials are accountable to safeguard public dollars, making the Vikings’ refusal to negotiate in a forthright manner unacceptable. This monopoly industry, filled with millionaire players and billionaire owners, should be more forthcoming with all of us if it wants $600 million in public money. We do know is that the Vikings and its owner will receive over $80 million per year just on broadcasting rights. That will jump to over $150 million per year under the contracts that begin in 2014.

“The current price tag of the stadium is too high. A stadium could be built for much less, the Vikings could increase their share of the cost, and the business community could step up to help with financing. Other NFL markets have built stadiums with 70-90% private financing. The proposed stadium in Los Angeles (which is, in fact, many years from being built, if ever) is being 100% privately financed.

“Any scheme that involves expanding gambling of any sort is wholly inadvisable. Minnesota would just be making the same mistake that other states have, creating a new dependence on gambling taxes that have proven to be unreliable and insufficient to offset the added costs from gambling associated social problems and crime. Furthermore, no new net revenue is created from this source. The only economic result is that the already fixed amount of entertainment dollars people spend in our region and state are shifted around.

“I remain a strong supporter of public investments that actually expand prosperity and improve economic productivity: education, early childhood, research, infrastructure, health, the environment, and workforce development. I would be willing to consider a compromise on this matter is if the debate over paying for a stadium would open up the political and policy potential of making investments in those things that would make a real difference for our future.”

Comments (both by me):

Now I do believe that Ziggy could/should kick in some more money, but even though the Senator says it's a net zero investment, he's totally wrong. How many businesses depend on the NFL to bring fans into Minneapolis 12 times a year? How much money do the Vikings currently contribute to the area in forms of charities, public services and overall awareness? What is the actual cost benefit of being only 1 of 32 cities to host an NFL team? Can it be quantified?10 hours ago · LikeUnlike.

Either way, this guy, Sen. Dibble is doing what he perceives as the right thing to do and either way it goes, my bet is he doesn't get re-elected. 1 of 32 of 15,000 (approx). If you have the NFL then you're the .0002% of the country that the other 99.9998 wants to be.

Remember that Jacksonville, when it's our turn to rebuild

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

We've had this convo before, Taca.  It's just not about J'ville this time.

[tufsu1]

note the dig on Jacksonville and its ability to host a Super Bowl...just one more reason it will be many years (if ever) before this city hosts another one

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

note the dig on Jacksonville and its ability to host a Super Bowl...just one more reason it will be many years (if ever) before this city hosts another one

I take the digs on Jacksonville by Mike Florio, print them on a nice, cushiony paper and then wipe my ass with them.