Jaguars already planning Phase II for Lot J development

[Kerry]

And San Diego.

Meanwhile, cities without an NFL team, or even no pro team at all, runs circles around us.

[thelakelander]

Yes, I forgot about San Diego!

[Ken_FSU]

We have an existing long-term iron-clad lease with the Jags.  That hasn't stopped them for asking - and receiving - hundreds of millions of dollars. Hell, Lot J itself is an example of that.  You think all of a sudden the Jags/NFL are going to put their hands back in their pockets and stop asking for money?

We've only got nine years left on the lease, and if it was that iron-clad, the Jags wouldn't be able to unilaterally shift home games overseas without city approval.

Do I think the Jags are going to stop asking for money if we cave on Lot J/stadium improvements and lock in 7 games a year in Jacksonville through 2040 or 2045? Absolutely not.

But will we be in a much, much better position to make a rational, rather than fear-based, municipal decision on the ask? Absolutely.

[Kerry]

The whole pro-jags stance is fear-based.

[Peter Griffin]

The whole pro-jags stance is fear-based.

WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF, KERRY?!

[Steve]

I agree we should package things up as much as possible. But I do agree with Kerry in that they'll never stop asking for money. That's an accepted part of being in the NFL game and definitely not unique to Jax. Since 1960, only Oakland and St. Louis will be the two cities to have lost teams recently without a replacement. We'll soon find out what the economic impact on both places will be.

Related, here's an interesting stat expanding to the 4 major sports:

Right now, the Top 43 MSAs have at least 1 team in the 4 major sports, Except:

- #13 Riverside, CA (Which I consider part of the LA Area)
- #30 Austin, TX (Which has UT)
- #37 Virginia Beach/Norfolk, VA
- #38 Providence, RI (Which I say they have the Patriots as the stadium is closer to Providence than Boston)

Jacksonville would be the largest MSA to lose a professional sports team without one coming back. The closest thing I can come up with is Hartford, CT, which lost the Whalers in the 1990s (they are currently #48, and have lost .5% of their population over the last decade).

For a growing city, this would be unprecedented.

[Kerry]

Maybe Jax just picked the wrong sport/league to hitch their wagon to.

[vicupstate]

Jacksonville would be the largest MSA to lose a professional sports team without one coming back. The closest thing I can come up with is

Hartford, CT, which lost the Whalers in the 1990s (they are currently #48, and have lost .5% of their population over the last decade).

For a growing city, this would be unprecedented.

San Diego, St. Louis and Oakland are all bigger

[Peter Griffin]

Maybe Jax just picked the wrong sport/league to hitch their wagon to.

The entire city of Jacksonville does not have its wagon hitched to its football team, it's an accessory which we pay for, not an economic engine upon which our economy is built.

You don't like the Jags, you seem to take umbrage with the entire NFL's business model, you know what you can do?

DON'T SUPPORT THE TEAM!

Oh, well, funny you should mention, I can't NOT support the team because muh tax dollars subsidize...

MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

[Tacachale]

I agree we should package things up as much as possible. But I do agree with Kerry in that they'll never stop asking for money. That's an accepted part of being in the NFL game and definitely not unique to Jax. Since 1960, only Oakland and St. Louis will be the two cities to have lost teams recently without a replacement. We'll soon find out what the economic impact on both places will be.

Related, here's an interesting stat expanding to the 4 major sports:

Right now, the Top 43 MSAs have at least 1 team in the 4 major sports, Except:

- #13 Riverside, CA (Which I consider part of the LA Area)
- #30 Austin, TX (Which has UT)
- #37 Virginia Beach/Norfolk, VA
- #38 Providence, RI (Which I say they have the Patriots as the stadium is closer to Providence than Boston)

Jacksonville would be the largest MSA to lose a professional sports team without one coming back. The closest thing I can come up with is Hartford, CT, which lost the Whalers in the 1990s (they are currently #48, and have lost .5% of their population over the last decade).

For a growing city, this would be unprecedented.

Jacksonville would be the largest MSA to lose a professional sports team without one coming back. The closest thing I can come up with is

Hartford, CT, which lost the Whalers in the 1990s (they are currently #48, and have lost .5% of their population over the last decade).

For a growing city, this would be unprecedented.

San Diego, St. Louis and Oakland are all bigger

Since 1990, a variety of cities have lost their sports teams, and all are bigger than Jax other than Hartford and Quebec, neither of which has gotten another team.

MLB: Montreal lost the Expos in 2005
NFL: Oakland will lose the Raiders this year, San Diego lost the Chargers in 2017, and St. Louis lost the Rams in 2016.
NBA: Seattle lost the SuperSonics in 2005; Vancouver lost the Grizzlies in 2001.
NHL: Atlanta lost the Thrashers in 2011; Hartford lost the Whalers in 1997, and Quebec City lost the Nordiques in 1995.

I assume you're saying it would be unprecedented for a city of our size with only one sports team to lose it and not getting it back. That appears to be true, other than Hartford and Quebec, but it shows that teams don't actually move because they're in a "small market", aren't making enough profit, or ticket sales are suffering. They move due to stadium issues or else the owner's personal decisions.

[Tacachale]

Let's also consider that the business model of major league sports depends on holding monopolies over their games, and keeping the number of teams artificially lower than the cities that could support them. There are probably 50 cities or more that could support a sports team, and some that could (and do) support multiple. But by restricting the number of teams to 30-32, they ensure there's always another city that will build that stadium they want.

For the NFL, however, they're starting to get tapped out. Some cities have been reluctant to build those $1 billion+ stadiums to keep or attract a team. And they may well be starting to run out of cities. These are the only MSAs in the top 40 with no NFL team:

12   San Francisco - Incredibly, the San Francisco-Oakland MSA will not have a football team once the Raiders move, since the 49ers stadium in Santa Clara is officially in the San Jose MSA which is for some reason separate. But clearly the 49ers represent San Francisco and the Bay Area.
13. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA - As Steve said above, this is effectively part of the LA metro, and they seem pretty capped on football right now.
17. San Diego - Lost the Chargers in 2017, as the voters rejected the team's demands for a new stadium. Now they play in a soccer field while waiting to become the permanent second banana. LA, like San Diego, is not paying for that new stadium. Of course they still have the Padres.
20   St. Louis - lost the Rams in 2016. Here the city was perfectly willing to renovate a stadium, but wouldn't give their ass of an owner the Cadillac stadium he wanted. So he picked up his ball and went to LA, where he's largely having to pay for the stadium himself. Still have the Cardinals and Blues, and an incoming MLS team. STL has been clear they won't be pursuing the NFL for the foreseeable future.
22   Orlando - Unlikely to get or pursue a football team with 3 in the state, and the Buccaneers less than 100 miles away. They have the Magic and Orlando City SC.
24   San Antonio - Often mentioned as a potential city for an NFL team, and perhaps the most likely to get one other than San Diego. They do have the Spurs already.
25   Portland - Like the California cities, Portland has been reluctant to fund a hugely expensive stadium project of the type needed to attract a team. They have the TrailBlazers and Timbers.
26   Sacramento - Sacramento has long been dominated by the Bay Area's sports scene. I expect they'd also show the same disinclination to building a 2 billion dollar stadium as San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego, and LA.
30     Austin - The biggest city with no major league sports, though they'll be getting an MLS team next year. They're a possible location for an NFL team.
32     Columbus - Ohio is home to 2 football teams already, and isn't exactly a high growth area (although Columbus itself is growing). They also have Ohio State as well as the Blue Jackets.
35   San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara - Hilariously, this MSA actually does have a football team, the "San Francisco" 49ers.
37   Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News - They've never been in serious consideration for an NFL team. Part of the reason is there's no one central city that could lead the push.
38   Providence, RI - This is solidly Patriots territory; the Patriots' stadium is closer to Providence than it is to Boston. It's also not a growth area.
39   Milwaukee - Milwaukee will never get a team due to the Packers. They also have the Brewers and Bucks, making them by far the smallest metro with an MLB team, let alone two teams.

There are also some smaller but high growth cities that will probably be able to sustain football in the future, like Raleigh or Salt Lake City. And of course Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver would be successful football cities if the NFL ever decided to break into Canada. But otherwise that's it for North America. That's why the London experiment, and less successful experiments in Mexico City and Tokyo, is so important to them - they need other cities, or at least the threat of other cities, that'll keep giving the teams what they want.

[Kerry]

Maybe Jax just picked the wrong sport/league to hitch their wagon to.

The entire city of Jacksonville does not have its wagon hitched to its football team, it's an accessory which we pay for, not an economic engine upon which our economy is built.

So something we finally agree on.  I've been saying for years the Jags have little to no economic value, and what they do have pales in comparison to the public's cost of maintaining them.

[Charles Hunter]

If it weren't attached to the Jags, what incentives would the City be offering for the same development by someone not-the-Jags?  If the incentives are higher than we would give to Developer X, then the Lot J incentives need to be packaged with stadium upgrades (and any other Jaguar asks), and balanced with a strong lease extension.  If the incentive levels are similar, treat it like any other incentive/developer deal.

[I-10east]

Let's also consider that the business model of major league sports depends on holding monopolies over their games, and keeping the number of teams artificially lower than the cities that could support them. There are probably 50 cities or more that could support a sports team, and some that could (and do) support multiple. But by restricting the number of teams to 30-32, they ensure there's always another city that will build that stadium they want.

For the NFL, however, they're starting to get tapped out. Some cities have been reluctant to build those $1 billion+ stadiums to keep or attract a team. And they may well be starting to run out of cities. These are the only MSAs in the top 40 with no NFL team:

12   San Francisco - Incredibly, the San Francisco-Oakland MSA will not have a football team once the Raiders move, since the 49ers stadium in Santa Clara is officially in the San Jose MSA which is for some reason separate. But clearly the 49ers represent San Francisco and the Bay Area.
13. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA - As Steve said above, this is effectively part of the LA metro, and they seem pretty capped on football right now.
17. San Diego - Lost the Chargers in 2017, as the voters rejected the team's demands for a new stadium. Now they play in a soccer field while waiting to become the permanent second banana. LA, like San Diego, is not paying for that new stadium. Of course they still have the Padres.
20   St. Louis - lost the Rams in 2016. Here the city was perfectly willing to renovate a stadium, but wouldn't give their ass of an owner the Cadillac stadium he wanted. So he picked up his ball and went to LA, where he's largely having to pay for the stadium himself. Still have the Cardinals and Blues, and an incoming MLS team. STL has been clear they won't be pursuing the NFL for the foreseeable future.
22   Orlando - Unlikely to get or pursue a football team with 3 in the state, and the Buccaneers less than 100 miles away. They have the Magic and Orlando City SC.
24   San Antonio - Often mentioned as a potential city for an NFL team, and perhaps the most likely to get one other than San Diego. They do have the Spurs already.
25   Portland - Like the California cities, Portland has been reluctant to fund a hugely expensive stadium project of the type needed to attract a team. They have the TrailBlazers and Timbers.
26   Sacramento - Sacramento has long been dominated by the Bay Area's sports scene. I expect they'd also show the same disinclination to building a 2 billion dollar stadium as San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego, and LA.
30     Austin - The biggest city with no major league sports, though they'll be getting an MLS team next year. They're a possible location for an NFL team.
32     Columbus - Ohio is home to 2 football teams already, and isn't exactly a high growth area (although Columbus itself is growing). They also have Ohio State as well as the Blue Jackets.
35   San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara - Hilariously, this MSA actually does have a football team, the "San Francisco" 49ers.
37   Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News - They've never been in serious consideration for an NFL team. Part of the reason is there's no one central city that could lead the push.
38   Providence, RI - This is solidly Patriots territory; the Patriots' stadium is closer to Providence than it is to Boston. It's also not a growth area.
39   Milwaukee - Milwaukee will never get a team due to the Packers. They also have the Brewers and Bucks, making them by far the smallest metro with an MLB team, let alone two teams.

There are also some smaller but high growth cities that will probably be able to sustain football in the future, like Raleigh or Salt Lake City. And of course Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver would be successful football cities if the NFL ever decided to break into Canada. But otherwise that's it for North America. That's why the London experiment, and less successful experiments in Mexico City and Tokyo, is so important to them - they need other cities, or at least the threat of other cities, that'll keep giving the teams what they want.

Taca, I agree that Providence isn't a high growth area (metro growing at only +1.28) but Columbus, OH is a fast growing metro (might be the fastest large metro in the Rust Belt). It's growing at +10.76. Columbus's metro will eventually pass the KC and Cincinnati's metro, and place right behind Las Vegas or Austin.

In speaking of Providence and Milwaukee, Jax any minute will pass those two metros, and place behind Virginia Beach (or maybe passing VA Beach and be right behind Nashville in around four or so years)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas

[Steve]

I don't see Columbus or Austin getting NFL teams in my lifetime, for the same reason: They're mid-sized cities that are home to two of the mega programs of college football.