(09-03-2015 06:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  Nonsense. He got a massive rebuild of the Astrodome and then wanted a new stadium while the rebuild was still being paid for. The city said no. Nobody kicked Bud out. He was just a greedy owner trying to hold a city hostage. And he got Jacksonville a franchise because he used them to get the Astrodome rebuild. Justice was served. Houston got a new owner with Reliant Stadium and he got stuck in Nashville.

We're agreeing, how is it nonsense?

As I said, he tried to bluff the city by threatening to move and it backfired. His heart was always in Houston: he did things like force Jeff Fisher to draft Houston native Vince Young and was the most disappointed out of all when Houston lost out on Super Bowls due to politics.

(09-03-2015 09:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Wouldn't everything you said about Orlando and Sacramento being in secondary markets for the two Bay Areas, apply to Toronto being near Buffalo as well? I realize that since Toronto is the bigger market, it is similar to LA vs. SD, where LA getting a team is a priority, but it seems to me that unless the team to move to Toronto is the Bills, there would be problems there.

How so? A team could play in Vancouver or even Windsor or Niagara Falls, ON and that franchise would still have the distinction of being Canada's only team despite being right across the border from an NFL team.

Toronto is Canada's New York, so a team would be fine.

(09-06-2015 07:32 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:20 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Los Angles Rams
Los Angels Chargers
St Louis Raiders

Why does St. Louis get a 3rd chance at an NFL franchise?

Why does LA? They've already lost 3 teams (granted one was an AFL franchise that became an NFL franchise).

(09-06-2015 08:48 AM)bluesox Wrote:  All depends on who builds a new stadium, st louis seems more viable than oakland or san diego. I think its a lock for LA to get 2 teams with 1 stadium. Also, don't think the NFL wants to put 2 teams in LA and keep a team in san diego. I think in the end the raiders option will be move in with the 49ers or move to st louis if they green light a stadium.

The Raiders ONLY option is to move into Santa Clara. Either that or beg to move in and upgrade Cal's stadium, try to get a deal in Sacramento (yeah right, they're trying to get the Kings situated) or San Antonio ( a viable option imo).

(09-06-2015 11:28 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  Nonsense. He got a massive rebuild of the Astrodome and then wanted a new stadium while the rebuild was still being paid for. The city said no. Nobody kicked Bud out. He was just a greedy owner trying to hold a city hostage. And he got Jacksonville a franchise because he used them to get the Astrodome rebuild. Justice was served. Houston got a new owner with Reliant Stadium and he got stuck in Nashville.

We're agreeing, how is it nonsense?

As I said, he tried to bluff the city by threatening to move and it backfired. His heart was always in Houston: he did things like force Jeff Fisher to draft Houston native Vince Young and was the most disappointed out of all when Houston lost out on Super Bowls due to politics.

(09-03-2015 09:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Wouldn't everything you said about Orlando and Sacramento being in secondary markets for the two Bay Areas, apply to Toronto being near Buffalo as well? I realize that since Toronto is the bigger market, it is similar to LA vs. SD, where LA getting a team is a priority, but it seems to me that unless the team to move to Toronto is the Bills, there would be problems there.

How so? A team could play in Vancouver or even Windsor or Niagara Falls, ON and that franchise would still have the distinction of being Canada's only team despite being right across the border from an NFL team.

Toronto is Canada's New York, so a team would be fine.

(09-06-2015 07:32 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:20 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Los Angles Rams
Los Angels Chargers
St Louis Raiders

Why does St. Louis get a 3rd chance at an NFL franchise?

Why does LA? They've already lost 3 teams (granted one was an AFL franchise that became an NFL franchise).

(09-06-2015 08:48 AM)bluesox Wrote:  All depends on who builds a new stadium, st louis seems more viable than oakland or san diego. I think its a lock for LA to get 2 teams with 1 stadium. Also, don't think the NFL wants to put 2 teams in LA and keep a team in san diego. I think in the end the raiders option will be move in with the 49ers or move to st louis if they green light a stadium.

The Raiders ONLY option is to move into Santa Clara. Either that or beg to move in and upgrade Cal's stadium, try to get a deal in Sacramento (yeah right, they're trying to get the Kings situated) or San Antonio ( a viable option imo).

Raiders can't play at Cal. To settle a lawsuit brought by NIMBYs when Memorial Stadium was renovated, Cal had to agree that a maximum of 8 "major events" (including Cal football games) per year would be in the stadium.

Sacramento is going through big-time financial shenanigans to try to finance a basketball arena, so NFL is out of the question there.

San Antonio is far and away the top backup plan for the Raiders, should they not get a deal in CA. Davis has already scouted out San Antonio and met with all the city leaders.

I would be pretty shocked if dallas and houston would allow the raiders to move to San Antonio. Not to mention they would need a new stadium since the alamo dome is outdated. Toronto could work for the raiders if the NFL thought buffalo was OK with a team in toronto. Other than that, the raiders can move in with the 49ers or try to get what seems like a viable st louis stadium built. To other option in a franchise trade so the rams owner gets a team in LA. I guess it could be plausible that the rams owner would build a stadium in LA for the charges/raiders while he keeps a team in st louis but that seems doubtful. The key fact is the owner of the raiders has the least amount of money and political favors/friends.

(09-06-2015 01:22 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I would be pretty shocked if dallas and houston would allow the raiders to move to San Antonio. Not to mention they would need a new stadium since the alamo dome is outdated. Toronto could work for the raiders if the NFL thought buffalo was OK with a team in toronto. Other than that, the raiders can move in with the 49ers or try to get what seems like a viable st louis stadium built. To other option in a franchise trade so the rams owner gets a team in LA. I guess it could be plausible that the rams owner would build a stadium in LA for the charges/raiders while he keeps a team in st louis but that seems doubtful. The key fact is the owner of the raiders has the least amount of money and political favors/friends.

While the Alamodome is outdated, it's in far better shape than the Colisiem, making it a suitable temporary facility. A move to San Antonio is the only option that lets Davis keep his team while also improving his financial situation. The question can he put together a coalition of owners that would approve such a move. I think that's a highly unlikely prospect. Davis complaining about his ordeal when the Levi Stadium option was viable I think let a sour taste in the mouths of the rest of the league owners.

(09-03-2015 09:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Wouldn't everything you said about Orlando and Sacramento being in secondary markets for the two Bay Areas, apply to Toronto being near Buffalo as well? I realize that since Toronto is the bigger market, it is similar to LA vs. SD, where LA getting a team is a priority, but it seems to me that unless the team to move to Toronto is the Bills, there would be problems there.

How so? A team could play in Vancouver or even Windsor or Niagara Falls, ON and that franchise would still have the distinction of being Canada's only team despite being right across the border from an NFL team.

Toronto is Canada's New York, so a team across the border would be fine [/quote]

You are looking at it from the wrong side. The issue is not Toronto. It's what putting a team in Toronto would do to the Bills, unless the Bills themselves were the team to move there. The same issue with a team in Orlando and the Bucs or a team in Sacramento and the Bay Area.

(09-06-2015 03:23 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 09:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Wouldn't everything you said about Orlando and Sacramento being in secondary markets for the two Bay Areas, apply to Toronto being near Buffalo as well? I realize that since Toronto is the bigger market, it is similar to LA vs. SD, where LA getting a team is a priority, but it seems to me that unless the team to move to Toronto is the Bills, there would be problems there.

How so? A team could play in Vancouver or even Windsor or Niagara Falls, ON and that franchise would still have the distinction of being Canada's only team despite being right across the border from an NFL team.

Toronto is Canada's New York, so a team across the border would be fine

You are looking at it from the wrong side. The issue is not Toronto. It's what putting a team in Toronto would do to the Bills, unless the Bills themselves were the team to move there. The same issue with a team in Orlando and the Bucs or a team in Sacramento and the Bay Area.
[/quote]

Wouldn't the answer to that involve evaluating what impact the Jags had on the Bucs and the Dolphins?

(09-06-2015 05:05 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-06-2015 03:23 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 09:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Wouldn't everything you said about Orlando and Sacramento being in secondary markets for the two Bay Areas, apply to Toronto being near Buffalo as well? I realize that since Toronto is the bigger market, it is similar to LA vs. SD, where LA getting a team is a priority, but it seems to me that unless the team to move to Toronto is the Bills, there would be problems there.

How so? A team could play in Vancouver or even Windsor or Niagara Falls, ON and that franchise would still have the distinction of being Canada's only team despite being right across the border from an NFL team.

Toronto is Canada's New York, so a team across the border would be fine

You are looking at it from the wrong side. The issue is not Toronto. It's what putting a team in Toronto would do to the Bills, unless the Bills themselves were the team to move there. The same issue with a team in Orlando and the Bucs or a team in Sacramento and the Bay Area.

Wouldn't the answer to that involve evaluating what impact the Jags had on the Bucs and the Dolphins?
[/quote]

Looking at the Bills specifically is what's more important if you're talking about Toronto. Look at where the season ticket holders live, who buys team advertising/sponsorships, merchandise sales, media rights, etc.

The new Bills owner paid $1.4 billion for the team without even getting a promise of a new stadium; I think owners would defer to him if he objected to a Toronto franchise.

(09-06-2015 11:28 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  [quote='bullet' pid='12326278' dateline='1441323585']

Nonsense. He got a massive rebuild of the Astrodome and then wanted a new stadium while the rebuild was still being paid for. The city said no. Nobody kicked Bud out. He was just a greedy owner trying to hold a city hostage. And he got Jacksonville a franchise because he used them to get the Astrodome rebuild. Justice was served. Houston got a new owner with Reliant Stadium and he got stuck in Nashville.

We're agreeing, how is it nonsense?

As I said, he tried to bluff the city by threatening to move and it backfired. His heart was always in Houston: he did things like force Jeff Fisher to draft Houston native Vince Young and was the most disappointed out of all when Houston lost out on Super Bowls due to politics.


Your comment about Bob Lanier turning the public against the Oilers and kicking them out is the nonsense.

Bud Adams turned the public against himself and nobody wanted them to leave. They just didn't want to pay him every 10 years to stay.

(09-06-2015 07:35 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-06-2015 05:05 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-06-2015 03:23 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 09:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Wouldn't everything you said about Orlando and Sacramento being in secondary markets for the two Bay Areas, apply to Toronto being near Buffalo as well? I realize that since Toronto is the bigger market, it is similar to LA vs. SD, where LA getting a team is a priority, but it seems to me that unless the team to move to Toronto is the Bills, there would be problems there.

How so? A team could play in Vancouver or even Windsor or Niagara Falls, ON and that franchise would still have the distinction of being Canada's only team despite being right across the border from an NFL team.

Toronto is Canada's New York, so a team across the border would be fine

You are looking at it from the wrong side. The issue is not Toronto. It's what putting a team in Toronto would do to the Bills, unless the Bills themselves were the team to move there. The same issue with a team in Orlando and the Bucs or a team in Sacramento and the Bay Area.

Quote: Wouldn't the answer to that involve evaluating what impact the Jags had on the Bucs and the Dolphins?

Looking at the Bills specifically is what's more important if you're talking about Toronto. Look at where the season ticket holders live, who buys team advertising/sponsorships, merchandise sales, media rights, etc.

The new Bills owner paid $1.4 billion for the team without even getting a promise of a new stadium; I think owners would defer to him if he objected to a Toronto franchise.

Based on your last sentence, I think you probably have it right.

St. Louis is actually pretty solid market with corporate support and size. They even have a pretty solid stadium plan. They just have an owner who is a developer and has a jackpot development in LA. Who also has the resources for what the NFL wants in LA. It's a shame Kroenke couldn't own the Raiders or Chargers.

(09-06-2015 12:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Raiders can't play at Cal. To settle a lawsuit brought by NIMBYs when Memorial Stadium was renovated, Cal had to agree that a maximum of 8 "major events" (including Cal football games) per year would be in the stadium.

Sacramento is going through big-time financial shenanigans to try to finance a basketball arena, so NFL is out of the question there.

Which is why I said beg Cal to play there and upgrade it to NFL standards. I remember you telling me that situation, thus why I suggested they beg to move in with Cal. Better than playing in the Roman--err, [insert coporate name] Coliseum. Either one really (that's also a reference to LA's Coliseum).

(09-06-2015 02:55 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-06-2015 01:22 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I would be pretty shocked if dallas and houston would allow the raiders to move to San Antonio. Not to mention they would need a new stadium since the alamo dome is outdated. Toronto could work for the raiders if the NFL thought buffalo was OK with a team in toronto. Other than that, the raiders can move in with the 49ers or try to get what seems like a viable st louis stadium built. To other option in a franchise trade so the rams owner gets a team in LA. I guess it could be plausible that the rams owner would build a stadium in LA for the charges/raiders while he keeps a team in st louis but that seems doubtful. The key fact is the owner of the raiders has the least amount of money and political favors/friends.

While the Alamodome is outdated, it's in far better shape than the Colisiem, making it a suitable temporary facility. A move to San Antonio is the only option that lets Davis keep his team while also improving his financial situation. The question can he put together a coalition of owners that would approve such a move. I think that's a highly unlikely prospect. Davis complaining about his ordeal when the Levi Stadium option was viable I think let a sour taste in the mouths of the rest of the league owners.

He could move in with another large market NFL team with a relatively new stadium. Houston and Dallas are almost to the point where they can support two teams (Dallas-Fort Worth is already there imo). Philly could as well. New York could support three teams and my only problem with Chicago is the capacity of Soldier Field, which may actually be a benefit in the case of two teams.

(09-07-2015 12:27 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(09-06-2015 12:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Raiders can't play at Cal. To settle a lawsuit brought by NIMBYs when Memorial Stadium was renovated, Cal had to agree that a maximum of 8 "major events" (including Cal football games) per year would be in the stadium.

Sacramento is going through big-time financial shenanigans to try to finance a basketball arena, so NFL is out of the question there.

Which is why I said beg Cal to play there and upgrade it to NFL standards. I remember you telling me that situation, thus why I suggested they beg to move in with Cal. Better than playing in the Roman--err, [insert coporate name] Coliseum. Either one really (that's also a reference to LA's Coliseum).

Doesn't matter how much they beg Cal, because the university signed a binding settlement agreement that says, no more than 8 football games or other "major events" per year. Cal football games are 6 or 7 of those "major events" every year, leaving only one or two other "major events", football games or otherwise, that can be staged at Memorial Stadium. Unless the Raiders are planning on playing only one home game per season, it can't happen.

That unintentionally leads to another grand idea: why not just play in venues around the country for home games? The Raiders name has some cachet, tradition and a national following, so it could work.

(09-06-2015 12:33 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  San Antonio is far and away the top backup plan for the Raiders, should they not get a deal in CA. Davis has already scouted out San Antonio and met with all the city leaders.

San Antonio is almost perfect.

I would think the perfect move for davis would be to sell the raiders to some tech guy for a overpriced amount of money. How much would the oracle guy pay for the Raiders? New owner probably wouldn't have a problem moving the raiders into the 49ers pad for a short term deal. 5-10 years down the road, the raiders could move to London.

(09-07-2015 12:27 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(09-06-2015 12:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Raiders can't play at Cal. To settle a lawsuit brought by NIMBYs when Memorial Stadium was renovated, Cal had to agree that a maximum of 8 "major events" (including Cal football games) per year would be in the stadium.

Sacramento is going through big-time financial shenanigans to try to finance a basketball arena, so NFL is out of the question there.

Which is why I said beg Cal to play there and upgrade it to NFL standards. I remember you telling me that situation, thus why I suggested they beg to move in with Cal. Better than playing in the Roman--err, [insert coporate name] Coliseum. Either one really (that's also a reference to LA's Coliseum).

(09-06-2015 02:55 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-06-2015 01:22 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I would be pretty shocked if dallas and houston would allow the raiders to move to San Antonio. Not to mention they would need a new stadium since the alamo dome is outdated. Toronto could work for the raiders if the NFL thought buffalo was OK with a team in toronto. Other than that, the raiders can move in with the 49ers or try to get what seems like a viable st louis stadium built. To other option in a franchise trade so the rams owner gets a team in LA. I guess it could be plausible that the rams owner would build a stadium in LA for the charges/raiders while he keeps a team in st louis but that seems doubtful. The key fact is the owner of the raiders has the least amount of money and political favors/friends.

While the Alamodome is outdated, it's in far better shape than the Colisiem, making it a suitable temporary facility. A move to San Antonio is the only option that lets Davis keep his team while also improving his financial situation. The question can he put together a coalition of owners that would approve such a move. I think that's a highly unlikely prospect. Davis complaining about his ordeal when the Levi Stadium option was viable I think let a sour taste in the mouths of the rest of the league owners.

He could move in with another large market NFL team with a relatively new stadium. Houston and Dallas are almost to the point where they can support two teams (Dallas-Fort Worth is already there imo). Philly could as well. New York could support three teams and my only problem with Chicago is the capacity of Soldier Field, which may actually be a benefit in the case of two teams.

NFL owners have veto power over anyone moving into their home markets and they will ABSOLUTELY use it. There's NFW the Bears would allow another Chicago franchise or for the Cowboys to allow another Dallas franchise. Heck, the Cowboys would likely fight a San Antonio team because they claim that market, too. Plus, the other NFL owners don't want to see their own market monopolies getting encroached, either, so they would slam such moves as a general matter. The internal politics of the NFL can't be discounted - this is a league that has had a team in Jacksonville instead of Los Angeles for the past 2 decades. What might be logical to us as fans has absolutely no bearing on NFL decisions. When even the worst NFL franchises would see for over $1 billion these days, the owners are more controlling over who (whether it's new owners or markets) gets to share in that money.

(09-07-2015 08:13 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(09-06-2015 12:33 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  San Antonio is far and away the top backup plan for the Raiders, should they not get a deal in CA. Davis has already scouted out San Antonio and met with all the city leaders.

San Antonio is almost perfect.

Here's the dilemma for the Raiders: unless they move to LA, basically every other realistic option for them to move would mean that they move to a vastly inferior market. The SF Bay Area is the wealthiest metro region in the country and still growing fast. Whatever franchise value gains that they would get from a better stadium deal would be taken away by moving to a less valuable market. That's why I think they're staying put unless they find a way to get to LA. The territorial rights that the Raiders have in the Bay Area are still more valuable to a new potential owner because that new owner is going to convince himself that *he* will be the one to finally get a new stadium deal in place. The Chargers and Rams don't have that type of dilemma - the drop-off from San Diego and St. Louis to San Antonio in terms of market power and wealth isn't as great.

(09-07-2015 11:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-07-2015 08:13 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(09-06-2015 12:33 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  San Antonio is far and away the top backup plan for the Raiders, should they not get a deal in CA. Davis has already scouted out San Antonio and met with all the city leaders.

San Antonio is almost perfect.

Here's the dilemma for the Raiders: unless they move to LA, basically every other realistic option for them to move would mean that they move to a vastly inferior market. The SF Bay Area is the wealthiest metro region in the country and still growing fast. Whatever franchise value gains that they would get from a better stadium deal would be taken away by moving to a less valuable market. That's why I think they're staying put unless they find a way to get to LA. The territorial rights that the Raiders have in the Bay Area are still more valuable to a new potential owner because that new owner is going to convince himself that *he* will be the one to finally get a new stadium deal in place. The Chargers and Rams don't have that type of dilemma - the drop-off from San Diego and St. Louis to San Antonio in terms of market power and wealth isn't as great.

If you're looking at it in terms of how much money Davis can get when he finally sells, that's true. The sale price will be greater even as the "2nd team" in the Bay Area or LA than it would be as the only team in SD or StL or any market that doesn't now have an NFL team.

And if Davis moves the Raiders, who's going to buy them in a smaller market? We can tell from the NFL's LA drama that there are very, very few people with enough money to buy one of these teams, and even in that tiny group only a small percentage would want to spend their money on an NFL team. No one who has money and is serious has stepped forward in San Diego or St. Louis to say, "I want to buy this team and keep it here, please take my $1.4 billion."

(09-03-2015 03:55 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:41 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I know the league has good balance at 32 teams, and 34 teams would be hard to go to without major divisional realignment, but you'd have to wonder about expansion in 5-10 years. There are rumors that the NFL wants a team in London (distance be damned), as well as Toronto and I would imagine St Louis would be in the running if the Rams left.

Anyhow, it would be nice and neat if just the Raiders moved to LA and everyone else stayed put, but that's looking like it's not a realistic option.

From what I've read, they're pretty serious about putting a team in London....

32 team, 8 four-team divisions is nice and balanced, but the NFL also values growth...in a more globalized world, the NFL wants to keep pushing the boundaries and get access to more....tada!....

MARKETS

I still think the logistics of that are far too daunting for it to work. London is an extremely expensive city, players paid in dollars lose ground to the pound depending on exchange rates, and the UK has pretty high taxes. That hurts the ability to sign FAs unless you allow that team some kind of salary cap waiver. Plus there's travel time, time zone differences, scheduling headaches (32 is a nice, round number). Finally, there's been some questions regarding the legality of the NFL Draft in relation to EU labor laws which are very worker friendly, especially when it comes to the mobility of labor through the eurozone. Not to mention, the fact that the NFL already tried an European league and it failed.

I can definitely see them continuing to play games in London, maybe even a Super Bowl one day (though I hope not), but I'm not sold that a London franchise is feasible.