http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/san-d...ium-090215

The spin doctors are in full force regarding the proposed plans to move NFL teams to Los Angeles. Everybody, including the Rams, Chargers, Raiders, as well as the cities of San Diego, St louis, are trying to put out rumors that their stadium plan is winning.

But despite all the noise, there seems to be growing consensus that Kroenke's Inglewood stadium plan is the clear favorite and the Rams are moving to Los Angeles no matter what St Louis does.

At the same time, the Raiders simply don't have enough money to even be partners in a stadium deal in LA and will be the odd team out.

Which means the Chargers will probably end up teaming with the Rams and become the other team to move to LA.

Los Angles Rams
Los Angels Chargers
St Louis Raiders

So strange that LA goes from 2 teams to 0 teams back to 2 teams. Why not see how 1 franchise works for a while.

If the Rams indeed move back to LA, I wonder what will happen in St. Louis. I can't see that city going very long without an NFL franchise.

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

Los Angeles Rams
Los Angeles Chargers
San Antonio Raiders

The Raiders/Chargers pairing always sounded desperate from the start, where they seemed to be just doing anything to mark their territory in LA. Everything about the Rams proposal has been concrete - the Rams owner has the land in-hand, the local government entities have rammed all of the approvals through, etc. From an outside perspective, the Rams stadium is clearly the more reasonable proposal for the NFL owners to rely upon regardless of what the city of St. Louis can offer.

I just don't have a good feeling about St. Louis getting another team if the Rams end up leaving. It isn't LA where the franchise value skyrockets overnight simply by moving. Even being the #2 team in the Bay Area is more valuable for the Raiders if they can get any type of workable stadium in that metro area.

(09-03-2015 03:26 PM)Chappy Wrote:  If the Rams indeed move back to LA, I wonder what will happen in St. Louis. I can't see that city going very long without an NFL franchise.

In terms of TV market sizes, assuming LA gets 1 or 2 franchises, then St. Louis would be the 3rd largest US TV market that doesn't have a team. Orlando and Sacramento would be ahead of them, although under NFL secondary market rules, Orlando is considered to be a Bucs/Jags market (not saying that it's the reality there since there are probably more Dolphins fans than Jags fans for sure, but it's how the NFL TV rules work) and Sacramento is a 49ers/Raiders market. As a result, St. Louis would be the largest truly open US market.

That being said, don't sleep on Toronto for the NFL. This is a huge and wealthy market with a propensity to watch American sports and opens up an entirely new country to the NFL without the distance (i.e. London) or less wealthy demographics (i.e. Mexico City).

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.

(09-03-2015 03:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That being said, don't sleep on Toronto for the NFL. This is a huge and wealthy market with a propensity to watch American sports and opens up an entirely new country to the NFL without the distance (i.e. London) or less wealthy demographics (i.e. Mexico City).

Heh, thanks for reading my mind. lol

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

Wouldn't the Raiders franchise be less valuable in St. Louis than Oakland?

(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

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

San Antonio Raiders?

If California does not work out, San Antonio seems to be the top backup plan for the Raiders. There was a rumor going around that Mark Davis almost sold the team to San Antonio investors but Davis backed out at last minute. Davis has also said he has no interest in St Louis. St Louis just does not fit the Raider fan profile or something like that.

(09-03-2015 03:26 PM)Chappy Wrote:  If the Rams indeed move back to LA, I wonder what will happen in St. Louis. I can't see that city going very long without an NFL franchise.

St Louis Jaguars

Florida goes back to 2 Pro teams.

(09-03-2015 03:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:26 PM)Chappy Wrote:  If the Rams indeed move back to LA, I wonder what will happen in St. Louis. I can't see that city going very long without an NFL franchise.

In terms of TV market sizes, assuming LA gets 1 or 2 franchises, then St. Louis would be the 3rd largest US TV market that doesn't have a team. Orlando and Sacramento would be ahead of them, although under NFL secondary market rules, Orlando is considered to be a Bucs/Jags market (not saying that it's the reality there since there are probably more Dolphins fans than Jags fans for sure, but it's how the NFL TV rules work) and Sacramento is a 49ers/Raiders market. As a result, St. Louis would be the largest truly open US market.

That being said, don't sleep on Toronto for the NFL. This is a huge and wealthy market with a propensity to watch American sports and opens up an entirely new country to the NFL without the distance (i.e. London) or less wealthy demographics (i.e. Mexico City).

The Jaguars are almost certain to move when their stadium deal ends. That was a Bud Adams deal, one of his many bad ones (like Houston to Nashville.)

(09-03-2015 03:23 PM)Chappy Wrote:  So strange that LA goes from 2 teams to 0 teams back to 2 teams. Why not see how 1 franchise works for a while.

I agree, the NFL has struggled in LA before. And LA is a tough market to make it in sports-wise, but far from impossible (see the Dodgers and Lakers).

If I could see what the business logic was for two franchises in LA I'm sure it'd make more sense to me.

(09-03-2015 05:20 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:23 PM)Chappy Wrote:  So strange that LA goes from 2 teams to 0 teams back to 2 teams. Why not see how 1 franchise works for a while.

I agree, the NFL has struggled in LA before. And LA is a tough market to make it in sports-wise, but far from impossible (see the Dodgers and Lakers).

If I could see what the business logic was for two franchises in LA I'm sure it'd make more sense to me.

2 teams, 1 stadium. That's the business logic. 1 billion instead of 2 billion. Lots more usage of the stadium.

(09-03-2015 03:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:26 PM)Chappy Wrote:  If the Rams indeed move back to LA, I wonder what will happen in St. Louis. I can't see that city going very long without an NFL franchise.

In terms of TV market sizes, assuming LA gets 1 or 2 franchises, then St. Louis would be the 3rd largest US TV market that doesn't have a team. Orlando and Sacramento would be ahead of them, although under NFL secondary market rules, Orlando is considered to be a Bucs/Jags market (not saying that it's the reality there since there are probably more Dolphins fans than Jags fans for sure, but it's how the NFL TV rules work) and Sacramento is a 49ers/Raiders market. As a result, St. Louis would be the largest truly open US market.

That being said, don't sleep on Toronto for the NFL. This is a huge and wealthy market with a propensity to watch American sports and opens up an entirely new country to the NFL without the distance (i.e. London) or less wealthy demographics (i.e. Mexico City).

There is that whole CFL/NFL gentleman's agreement, even if the NFL ruffled some feathers north of border by letting the Bills play there for a year.

(09-03-2015 04:30 PM)carolinaknights Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:26 PM)Chappy Wrote:  If the Rams indeed move back to LA, I wonder what will happen in St. Louis. I can't see that city going very long without an NFL franchise.

St Louis Jaguars

Florida goes back to 2 Pro teams.

If you were gonna stir the pot so much, you could have at least said 5 pro teams (Miami, UF, FSU included).

(09-03-2015 05:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  The Jaguars are almost certain to move when their stadium deal ends. That was a Bud Adams deal, one of his many bad ones (like Houston to Nashville.)

Bud Adams tried to bluff the city to, essentially, build Reliant Stadium years before it actually happened. The problem was he had already gotten them to tear the soul out of the Astrodome for more seats and then-Mayor Bob Lanier turned the citizens against him and kicked him out.

There is zero desire in LA to have the Chargers there. The most is for the Rams and then the Raiders. The NFL isn't going to approve of a team to move to LA if an already fickle population doesn't want you before you even arrive.

St. Louis will have quite awhile to get a new stadium plan in order. The Jaguars deal in Jacksonville is going to last for awhile until the NFL is ready to buy it out. A Jaguars move to St. Louis is actually better for the geography of their current division.

(09-03-2015 03:23 PM)Chappy Wrote:  So strange that LA goes from 2 teams to 0 teams back to 2 teams. Why not see how 1 franchise works for a while.

Rams get to move because Kroenke is the only one with enough money to build a stadium.

But, it takes 24 of 32 owners voting yes to approve a move. Chargers reportedly have at least 9 votes to block Kroenke if he doesn't agree to let the Chargers play in Inglewood.

The Raiders don't have money and lose in the game of NFL owner politics. The most the NFL will do for them is persuade the 49ers to let the Raiders play in Santa Clara, or let them move someplace other than LA if anyone will build them a new stadium. That makes St. Louis most likely if the Raiders don't want to play in Santa Clara. The Rams and Chargers would object to the Raiders moving to San Diego (even if they pretend in public that they don't object) and the Cowboys and Texans would object to San Antonio (even if they pretend in public that they don't object).

(09-03-2015 05:48 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:26 PM)Chappy Wrote:  If the Rams indeed move back to LA, I wonder what will happen in St. Louis. I can't see that city going very long without an NFL franchise.

In terms of TV market sizes, assuming LA gets 1 or 2 franchises, then St. Louis would be the 3rd largest US TV market that doesn't have a team. Orlando and Sacramento would be ahead of them, although under NFL secondary market rules, Orlando is considered to be a Bucs/Jags market (not saying that it's the reality there since there are probably more Dolphins fans than Jags fans for sure, but it's how the NFL TV rules work) and Sacramento is a 49ers/Raiders market. As a result, St. Louis would be the largest truly open US market.

That being said, don't sleep on Toronto for the NFL. This is a huge and wealthy market with a propensity to watch American sports and opens up an entirely new country to the NFL without the distance (i.e. London) or less wealthy demographics (i.e. Mexico City).

There is that whole CFL/NFL gentleman's agreement, even if the NFL ruffled some feathers north of border by letting the Bills play there for a year.

(09-03-2015 04:30 PM)carolinaknights Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:26 PM)Chappy Wrote:  If the Rams indeed move back to LA, I wonder what will happen in St. Louis. I can't see that city going very long without an NFL franchise.

St Louis Jaguars

Florida goes back to 2 Pro teams.

If you were gonna stir the pot so much, you could have at least said 5 pro teams (Miami, UF, FSU included).

(09-03-2015 05:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  The Jaguars are almost certain to move when their stadium deal ends. That was a Bud Adams deal, one of his many bad ones (like Houston to Nashville.)

Bud Adams tried to bluff the city to, essentially, build Reliant Stadium years before it actually happened. The problem was he had already gotten them to tear the soul out of the Astrodome for more seats and then-Mayor Bob Lanier turned the citizens against him and kicked him out.

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.