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

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

Well Miami is five hours away from Jacksonville, so I don't see the issue. Tampa is a bit closer, but still further away than say Philadelphia is from New York, or Baltimore or Washington. So again not quite the same. Buffalo is drawing a decent number of fans from Canada.

edit: On the flip side, everything I just said could be applied to San Antonio in reference to Dallas and Houston, and they likely would oppose a team in San Antonio. So point well taken.

(09-07-2015 01:39 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

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

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

Well Miami is five hours away from Jacksonville, so I don't see the issue. Tampa is a bit closer, but still further away than say Philadelphia is from New York, or Baltimore or Washington. So again not quite the same. Buffalo is drawing a decent number of fans from Canada.

edit: On the flip side, everything I just said could be applied to San Antonio in reference to Dallas and Houston, and they likely would oppose a team in San Antonio. So point well taken.

or Los angeles and San Diego.

(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.

True, but there doesn't appear to be any indication that Davis wants to sell. And unless the city of Oakland builds him a new stadium, Mark Davis can't access that wealth to improve his financial situation. And there is NFW the owners gang up to try a divest Davis of ownership, that being far too slippery a slope to contemplate.

Do y'all realize just how far away San Antonio is from Dallas and Houston? Texas is a HUGE state and SA is a long way away from either. I get that JJ wants to keep all of SA to himself. But SA is farther away from Dallas, than a majority of other NFL teams are to their nearest rivals. For example, SA is further away from Dallas, than say Washington is from New York. Chicago is from Detroit, Atlanta is from Charlotte, Tampa is from Jacksonville, etc.

(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.

You do realize that the San Antonio and Austin Markets are merging, and have over 4 million people combined, don't you. And on top of that, it's the fastest growing area in the country and will have over 5 million within a decade.

Have you ever set foot in the SA/Austin area?

It's not a "small" area by any means. If you're going to say Oakland has inroads into the SF market to include SF and SJ, then you must admit that a SA based team would have inroads all throughout South Texas from Brownsville, Corpus, Laredo, and the monster Austin area.

Google Austin's skyline some time. This in no small town.

(09-07-2015 11:13 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  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.

Money talks, that's how the Nationals were allowed to move into the Orioles' territory (and just because Baltimore and Washington are distinct doesn't mean the Nationals don't take away from the Orioles' market).

If I had a team outside of the NHL, I'd rather move a team to New York/NJ/SW Connecticut instead of somewhere like San Antonio or Virginia. There's still more money and crossover (i.e. people who are fans or the corporate types who would pay to watch a game) in that area than in a small, barely sizable market.

The historical attendance and profitiability of the Clippers speaks to that given that they are the polar opposite of the Lakers and even play in the same arena (thus, they provide a similar arena experience). Laker tickets are hard to come by, so the corperate types are still willing to watch a bad basketball team, historically anyways, just to be able to get an NBA experience because other than being annoyed by Laker fans and pushed to the C's, why would anyone in LA be Clipper fan as opposed to Laker fan?

(09-07-2015 10:09 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Do y'all realize just how far away San Antonio is from Dallas and Houston? Texas is a HUGE state and SA is a long way away from either. I get that JJ wants to keep all of SA to himself. But SA is farther away from Dallas, than a majority of other NFL teams are to their nearest rivals. For example, SA is further away from Dallas, than say Washington is from New York. Chicago is from Detroit, Atlanta is from Charlotte, Tampa is from Jacksonville, etc.

Actually, not far at all. Texas is a big state for certain and El Paso is 12-13 hours from me with no traffic but San Antonio is only 2-3 hours from Houston. If they wanted to, the Rockets and Spurs could take a bus back home after playing each other and be back home long before the earliest local news. To a lesser extent, the same could be said of the Spurs and Mavs.

(09-07-2015 10:14 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  You do realize that the San Antonio and Austin Markets are merging, and have over 4 million people combined, don't you. And on top of that, it's the fastest growing area in the country and will have over 5 million within a decade.

Have you ever set foot in the SA/Austin area?

It's not a "small" area by any means. If you're going to say Oakland has inroads into the SF market to include SF and SJ, then you must admit that a SA based team would have inroads all throughout South Texas from Brownsville, Corpus, Laredo, and the monster Austin area.

Google Austin's skyline some time. This in no small town.

A merger between the San Antonio and Austin MSA's may happen at some point but it's not gonna happen any time soon. And I've driven that gap too and almost the only thing in between Austin and the north side of San Antonio is New Branfels and San Marcos with almost zero connectivity. If there's significant growth between the two because of Texas State and growth around New Branfels, then it may happen. A commuter rail between the two would also expediate the process.

Your second to last paragraph is right though, an SA team wouldn't be limited to SA.

(09-08-2015 01:12 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Money talks, that's how the Nationals were allowed to move into the Orioles' territory (and just because Baltimore and Washington are distinct doesn't mean the Nationals don't take away from the Orioles' market).

The Nationals' move to DC reeked of Selig's cronyism and ought to give any other league pause before letting one team encroach on another's market. MLB made a giant mess out of that and they are still fighting over how to divide the revenue from the RSN that carries both Orioles and Nationals games. They've been fighting for over three years now. MLB took the side of the Nationals and has been pummeling the Orioles.

The commissioner doesn't brandish that kind of power over other owners in the NFL, NBA, or NHL and couldn't get away with shoving a second or third team into an existing market today because of the damage it would cause to the franchise value of the "first team". This isn't 30 years ago when franchise values were far less.

(09-07-2015 10:14 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(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.

You do realize that the San Antonio and Austin Markets are merging, and have over 4 million people combined, don't you. And on top of that, it's the fastest growing area in the country and will have over 5 million within a decade.

Have you ever set foot in the SA/Austin area?

It's not a "small" area by any means. If you're going to say Oakland has inroads into the SF market to include SF and SJ, then you must admit that a SA based team would have inroads all throughout South Texas from Brownsville, Corpus, Laredo, and the monster Austin area.

Google Austin's skyline some time. This in no small town.

I didn't say that it was small. It *is* smaller than the Bay Area, which is also the wealthiest metro area in the nation. Part of the Raiders franchise value is that they have territorial rights for that metro market specifically. My point is that such portion of their franchise value would go down for any other realistic move with the exception of LA. Now, maybe a place like San Antonio or St. Louis can create such a great stadium deal that it would compensate for the loss in franchise value from giving up those Bay Area territorial rights, but that's a tall order in this day and age. This isn't like 20 years ago when franchises were willing to put a better stadium deal above a superior market at all costs (as we saw with the Rams and Raiders moving from LA). TV value has become *much* more important and that is significantly tied to the value of your home market (although it is admittedly a bit less crucial in the NFL compared to MLB/NBA/NHL since the NFL shares so much more revenue equally).

(09-08-2015 03:01 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-08-2015 01:12 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Money talks, that's how the Nationals were allowed to move into the Orioles' territory (and just because Baltimore and Washington are distinct doesn't mean the Nationals don't take away from the Orioles' market).

The Nationals' move to DC reeked of Selig's cronyism and ought to give any other league pause before letting one team encroach on another's market. MLB made a giant mess out of that and they are still fighting over how to divide the revenue from the RSN that carries both Orioles and Nationals games. They've been fighting for over three years now. MLB took the side of the Nationals and has been pummeling the Orioles.

The commissioner doesn't brandish that kind of power over other owners in the NFL, NBA, or NHL and couldn't get away with shoving a second or third team into an existing market today because of the damage it would cause to the franchise value of the "first team". This isn't 30 years ago when franchise values were far less.

Yes, this was exactly what I was going to say. The comparisons of franchises moving into other teams' home markets from several decades ago simply aren't relevant anymore with how much franchise values have gone up in the past decade. Even the Nationals move involved a separate TV market (DC and Baltimore are separate despite having adjacent metro areas) and that is *still* a legal clusterf**k that continues to this day 10 years after the team moved from Montreal. (In that sense, it's analogous to the territorial claims that the Cowboys and Texans would have over San Antonio and Austin in the NFL.)

Now, LA is large enough of a market that the NFL is going to be willing to let two teams relocate there at the same time. They're starting fresh in that scenario and LA is a uniquely valuable market where the other NFL owners can charge massive relocation fees. However, I don't believe that if LA had been a one-team today (i.e. if the Rams had never moved to St. Louis) that they'd let anyone else encroach on their territory. No one wants to let that happen when these teams now have multi-billion valuations that are largely based on having monopoly power in many markets.

That can be tricky calculating the market value of franchise and then what it would be if they suddenly had to share a market.

If the Bears had to suddenly share Chicago with another team, its not like the Bears value would suddenly be cut in half, but it might go down a little.

The fact that the Chargers and Raiders have shown a willingness to share the LA market instead of keeping their old one suggests its complicated.

I know Forbes does an annual evaluation of franchise values and they are going crazy trying to figure out the current value of the Rams, Raiders and Chargers. Mainly because there are so many variables.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/...am-values/

the 2015 list is not out yet but below is the 2014 Forbes list of NFL franchise values.

http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/

Rank, TeamValue ($mil), 1-Yr Change (%)
#1Dallas Cowboys 3,200 39
#2New England Patriots. 2,600 44
#3Washington Redskins 2,400 41
#4New York Giants. 2,100 35
#5Houston Texans 1,850 28
#6New York Jets 1,800 30
#7Philadelphia Eagles 1,750. 33
#8Chicago Bears 1,700 36
#9San Francisco 49ers 1,600 31
#10Baltimore Ravens 1,500 22
#11Denver Broncos 1,450 25
#12Indianapolis Colts 1,400 17
#13Green Bay Packers. 1,375 16
#14Pittsburgh Steelers 1,350 21
#15Seattle Seahawks 1,330 23
#16Miami Dolphins 1,300 21
#17Carolina Panthers 1,250 1
#18Tampa Bay Buccaneers. 1,225 15
#19Tennessee Titans 1,160 10
#20Minnesota Vikings 1,150 14
#21Atlanta Falcons 1,125 21
#22Cleveland Browns 1,120. 11
#23New Orleans Saints 1,110 11
#24Kansas City Chiefs 1,100 9
#25Arizona Cardinals 1,000 4
#26San Diego Chargers 995 5
#27Cincinnati Bengals 990 7
#28Oakland Raiders 970 18
#29Jacksonville Jaguars 965 15
#30Detroit Lions 960 7
#31Buffalo Bills 935 7
#32 St Louis Rams. 930 6

(09-07-2015 04:49 PM)goofus Wrote:  edit: On the flip side, everything I just said could be applied to San Antonio in reference to Dallas and Houston, and they likely would oppose a team in San Antonio. So point well taken.

or Los angeles and San Diego.
[/quote]

One key difference is Los Angeles had teams prior to the Chargers ever being in San Diego, and SD more or less inherited the area after the Rams and Charges left, and knew the NFL would be returning.

(09-07-2015 10:09 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Do y'all realize just how far away San Antonio is from Dallas and Houston? Texas is a HUGE state and SA is a long way away from either. I get that JJ wants to keep all of SA to himself. But SA is farther away from Dallas, than a majority of other NFL teams are to their nearest rivals. For example, SA is further away from Dallas, than say Washington is from New York. Chicago is from Detroit, Atlanta is from Charlotte, Tampa is from Jacksonville, etc.

San Antonio is closer to Houston than Jacksonville is to Tampa. It is the same distance to Dallas as Jax is to Miami

(09-08-2015 01:12 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Money talks, that's how the Nationals were allowed to move into the Orioles' territory (and just because Baltimore and Washington are distinct doesn't mean the Nationals don't take away from the Orioles' market).

As someone who was there at the time, Angelos claimed not just Washington, but all the way down to Charlotte as his market. Had he been a little more reasonable about it, it may have worked. But he was out of his mind, and no one was really going to help him preserve his territory. Hell he tried to block the Ravens from coming to town because he claimed it was all his territory. Think of him as like a Davis. That said, one real and marketable difference between those two, and all of the others, is downtown Baltimore to where the Nationals' Stadium is 35 miles TOTAL distance. That is drastically different then the others in the conversation. And to your point, it still went thru. However without the Nats there, it left one team with a market stretching from Southern PA all the down to the Carolinas, which was way too much for one team to claim. It just so happens the place to put the stadium was really close to the existing one.

(09-07-2015 12:47 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  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.

Actually when Al started talking about moving back to Oakland (at least 2-3 years before it actually happened), The Sporting News (when it still looked like a newspaper) had an article suggesting this exact concept. The Raiders should become the California Raiders and play one home game per year at each of the following:

LA Coliseum
Rose Bowl
Jack Murphy
Candlestick
Oakland Coliseum
Anaheim Stadium
Memorial Stadium
Stanford Stadium

with pre-season games played at
Spartan Stadium
Bulldog Stadium

It of course did not account for the fact that three were in use by other NFL teams at the time. It was however a novel solution to the problem that existed even then.

so if I had to guess, the expected value of a relocated team, that shares a new stadium in Los Angeles, would be at least $1.6B, based on thats about the value of both the Bears and 49ers. and you would expect it to be less than the NY Jets, which is $1.8B

The value of existing franchises in St Louis, San Diego or Oakland, without a new stadium, is about $1.0B. With a new stadium, that might go up to $1.3B, where the team is expected to pay $0.3B of new stadium costs, but then you still have to pay a lease.

so if the team's cost to split a new stadium in Los angeles is $1.8B/2 = $0.9B, but then you keep the stadium revenue.

So in the end it seems about a wash, money wise. the math does not quite add up to justify a move if your old city is offering to build you a new stadium.

I don't know, I think all of those projected values ought to be higher.

The value of any NFL franchise in LA has to be at least $2 billion. The frikkin' Clippers sold for $2 billion. Given that the average NFL team has a higher valuation than the average NBA team, the value of an LA NFL team, with a brand new stadium coming on line, might be a lot more than $2 billion.

The value of any smaller-market NFL team has to be close to the Bills' recent sale, even if they play in a soon-to-be discarded stadium like the Rams and Chargers. The Bills play in one of the smallest markets -- San Diego County alone has 3.2 million people, the St. Louis area has 2.8 million, the Buffalo area has 1.1 million. The Bills have an old stadium that opened in 1973, with no renovation or new stadium planned. And still the team sold last year for $1.4 billion.

(09-08-2015 12:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I don't know, I think all of those projected values ought to be higher.

The value of any NFL franchise in LA has to be at least $2 billion. The frikkin' Clippers sold for $2 billion. Given that the average NFL team has a higher valuation than the average NBA team, the value of an LA NFL team, with a brand new stadium coming on line, might be a lot more than $2 billion.

The value of any smaller-market NFL team has to be close to the Bills' recent sale, even if they play in a soon-to-be discarded stadium like the Rams and Chargers. The Bills play in one of the smallest markets -- San Diego County alone has 3.2 million people, the St. Louis area has 2.8 million, the Buffalo area has 1.1 million. The Bills have an old stadium that opened in 1973, with no renovation or new stadium planned. And still the team sold last year for $1.4 billion.

I agree Wedge. Market value depends on the market. Kroenke could sell the Rams to a St Louis group for way north of 1.5 billion.

(09-08-2015 12:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I don't know, I think all of those projected values ought to be higher.

The value of any NFL franchise in LA has to be at least $2 billion. The frikkin' Clippers sold for $2 billion. Given that the average NFL team has a higher valuation than the average NBA team, the value of an LA NFL team, with a brand new stadium coming on line, might be a lot more than $2 billion.

The value of any smaller-market NFL team has to be close to the Bills' recent sale, even if they play in a soon-to-be discarded stadium like the Rams and Chargers. The Bills play in one of the smallest markets -- San Diego County alone has 3.2 million people, the St. Louis area has 2.8 million, the Buffalo area has 1.1 million. The Bills have an old stadium that opened in 1973, with no renovation or new stadium planned. And still the team sold last year for $1.4 billion.

Yes - if the Clippers sold for $2 billion and the Dodgers sold for more than that a few years ago, then an LA NFL franchise is going to be at least $3 billion even if it has to share the market with another team. The Forbes franchise values have uniformly underestimated what teams have ended up selling for over the past several years. It's basically a market that only billionaires can realistically participate in and where the biggest perk is intangible fame (i.e. no one would know who guys like Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft and the Davis family would be if they didn't own sports teams). There is also a hard limited supply of pro franchises for sale at any given time. As a result, a lot of the standard economic fundamentals go out the window when a team is up for sale.

I feel bad for a place like St. Louis in the sense that they really are making a good faith effort to keep their team. In contrast, San Diego and Oakland are basically daring their teams to blink. However, Kroenke has the land and stadium deal in place in LA to move the Rams and it would instantly add over $1 billion in franchise value (and maybe even an extra $2 billion). From Kroenke's financial perspective, this isn't even a debate: the sooner that the Rams get to LA, the better. Even the richest people in the world will do a lot for an extra $1 billion to $2 billion in net worth.

Kroenke has no interest in selling the Rams to St. Louis investors, either - he already moved his interests in the Nuggets and Avalanche to his son specifically so that he could comply with NFL ownership rules and own an NFL team outright (instead of just a minority interest). This is about maximizing his investment in the Rams (which, if it were any of our money, we'd be doing the exact same thing).

(09-08-2015 12:54 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(09-08-2015 12:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I don't know, I think all of those projected values ought to be higher.

The value of any NFL franchise in LA has to be at least $2 billion. The frikkin' Clippers sold for $2 billion. Given that the average NFL team has a higher valuation than the average NBA team, the value of an LA NFL team, with a brand new stadium coming on line, might be a lot more than $2 billion.

The value of any smaller-market NFL team has to be close to the Bills' recent sale, even if they play in a soon-to-be discarded stadium like the Rams and Chargers. The Bills play in one of the smallest markets -- San Diego County alone has 3.2 million people, the St. Louis area has 2.8 million, the Buffalo area has 1.1 million. The Bills have an old stadium that opened in 1973, with no renovation or new stadium planned. And still the team sold last year for $1.4 billion.

I agree Wedge. Market value depends on the market. Kroenke could sell the Rams to a St Louis group for way north of 1.5 billion.

Yes, at least $1.5 billion, based on the Bills' sale price. And a franchise in a new stadium with real estate development in Inglewood might be worth $3 billion, based on the Clippers selling for $2 billion even though the Clips are just the third tenant in Staples Center and don't have ancillary arena or development revenue streams.

As I mentioned above, though, no one who actually has that much money to spend has stepped up, either in St. Louis or San Diego, and said, "Here's our money, we want to buy this team and keep it here." Very few people have that much money, and even fewer want to spend it on an NFL team.

The value of an NFL franchise in LA would be maximized if someone with Kroenke's resources owned both a new stadium and a franchise with the fan and media appeal of the Raiders. That's the biggest money grab for the NFL, Kroenke owning the LA Raiders. But it's not going to work out that way, because the Raiders owners (and the Chargers owners) say that they are not selling their teams.

I don't know, these franchise values have a bit of a bubble feel to them. I agree part of the Mania is being pushed by the outrageous sale price of the LA Clippers.

it would serve Kroenke right if he moves the Rams to LA, then see the NFL market collapse.

and the best way to know there is a bubble is when everybody stops trying to make sense of the sale price, but buys just because the price seems to always go up and never down.