(01-05-2016 04:13 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  The NFL is going to have a game of musical chairs going if they keep leaving desirable cities vacant. A similar situation is going to arise in the future if the NFL leaves San Diego open.

They want this. It gives teams leverage in stadium negotiations. My guess is that the Chargers and Rams move. The NFL doesn't want the Raiders to move until the Davis' sell. Then eventually they will move to San Antonio. St. Louis isn't getting a 3rd team.

(01-05-2016 06:34 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  The Browns should move to San Antonio and start fresh.

Cleveland will lose the Browns again.

Number one, the Browns aren't going anywhere. Period. Number two, I believe Mark Davis would be willing to cede some of his ownership of the Raiders so long as the Raiders get to relocate. The relationship between city of Oakland and the Raiders is beyond toxic and repair, IMO. As bad as Kroenke wants to move, I think the NFL is going to be more in favor of the Raiders and/or the Chargers leaving than the Rams. The Raiders and the Chargers both play in atrocious multipurpose stadiums that should have been replaced a long time ago. The Rams stadium is fairly new by comparison and the city of St. Louis should be given a pass this time around. Unfortunately, I don't see the city of San Diego getting another team to replace the Chargers although I really believe they should, given how the city of San Diego has been willing to work with them. The Spanos' see too many $$$$ in LA and they desperately want them. I'd like to see the Spanos' take over the Jags and the Jags owner get the Chargers. It is past time for the Chargers to get a new stadium, but the city of San Diego needs to be given a fair shake by the NFL.

(01-05-2016 05:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 04:57 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 04:13 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  The NFL is going to have a game of musical chairs going if they keep leaving desirable cities vacant. A similar situation is going to arise in the future if the NFL leaves San Diego open.

You say that like it is a bad thing (for them). Having one or two open desirable cities is exactly what the NFL wants, so they can keep getting whatever they want from current cities, in terms of freebies. It no longer works with the major markets, but it very much is a concern to the mid sized markets (relative to NFL teams, not cities in general). Assuming one of San Diego and St. Louis becomes vacant, or both, they make for good bargaining chips the next time a city needs work done on their stadium that was just built.

Cities that have lost NFL teams since 1982
Oakland 1982
Baltimore 1984
St. Louis 1988
LA 1995
LA 1995
Houston 1997
St. Louis 2015?
Oakland 2015?
San Diego 2015?

It is funny to note that Cleveland appears on this list 5 times, and Los Angeles is on this list three times, with STL probably about to join them. Oakland could also become a repeat offender. Teams have moved from Ohio cities 8 times. Also, historically, if your name is "Texans," you will have problems.

Other than Dallas Texans (NFL), Dallas Texans (AFL), Houston Texans (WFL), San Antonio Texans (CFL), Dallas Texans (Arena) what sort of problems have teams with the Texans name had.

Do You really want to see the St. Louis Texans, San Diego Texans ?

(01-05-2016 10:28 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 06:34 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  The Browns should move to San Antonio and start fresh.

The Browns have a ironclad lease with the city of Cleveland and it is a very sweet deal for Jimmy Haslem...plus they just finished Phase 1 of the remodeling First Energy Stadium in Cleveland...they are under lease agreement with the city until 2028

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/100022...m-upgrades

http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/news/arti...7a41b84a81

Well that ends that talk.

(01-05-2016 10:08 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 06:34 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  The Browns should move to San Antonio and start fresh.

See the post about viable stadiums

The city of San Antonio has a stadium they could use now. Plus when they talked to the Raiders there was talk with in 5 years of building a new one.

(01-06-2016 07:12 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 10:08 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 06:34 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  The Browns should move to San Antonio and start fresh.

See the post about viable stadiums

The city of San Antonio has a stadium they could use now. Plus when they talked to the Raiders there was talk with in 5 years of building a new one.

Could it be used in an emergency? Yes. But the bar has been set for a team to move to your city. It's Santa Clara/Dallas/Atlanta. You're not building an NFL stadium for less than a billion dollars. Even Minnesota crossed that barrier.

(01-06-2016 03:33 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 06:34 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  The Browns should move to San Antonio and start fresh.

Cleveland will lose the Browns again.

Will never happen again.

I still think you're going to see the Jags eventually relocate to London, and I wouldn't at all be surprised to see another team relocate to the European market to help make that more feasible/viable for the NFL.

IMO, the NFL has become obtuse to the reality facing major markets these days. Smaller budgets mean more austere expectations from a host city. For the NFL to extort money from these cities (and their citizens) is myopic and one of the reasons that the NFL needs to pump the brakes on all these demands for new stadiums.

San Diego is a great example. I lived about a mile from the "Murph" for over 5 years and attended MANY games there. The stadium is an old design but was kept immaculate by the city, and has been remodeled a couple of times, most rclecently when they closed the bowl as part of the Qualcomm renaming effort. Its not a dump as some other poster ignorantly called it. Yet the Chargers' ownership has screamed like a petulant child about wanting a new stadium, and not willing to foot any of the bill. Its not San Diego's responsibility to pay for suites to make Charger ownership richer. Charger ownership has been a lousy partner with the city of San Diego. I personally applaud them for standing their ground and if that means losing the team then so be it. The NFL owners' expectations are out of touch with the economic realities of their host cities, and I wish nothing but ill will to the Chargers if they leave SD.

(01-06-2016 08:12 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  IMO, the NFL has become obtuse to the reality facing major markets these days. Smaller budgets mean more austere expectations from a host city. For the NFL to extort money from these cities (and their citizens) is myopic and one of the reasons that the NFL needs to pump the brakes on all these demands for new stadiums.

San Diego is a great example. I lived about a mile from the "Murph" for over 5 years and attended MANY games there. The stadium is an old design but was kept immaculate by the city, and has been remodeled a couple of times, most rclecently when they closed the bowl as part of the Qualcomm renaming effort. Its not a dump as some other poster ignorantly called it. Yet the Chargers' ownership has screamed like a petulant child about wanting a new stadium, and not willing to foot any of the bill. Its not San Diego's responsibility to pay for suites to make Charger ownership richer. Charger ownership has been a lousy partner with the city of San Diego. I personally applaud them for standing their ground and if that means losing the team then so be it. The NFL owners' expectations are out of touch with the economic realities of their host cities, and I wish nothing but ill will to the Chargers if they leave SD.

I agree with your sentiment, but NFL owners aren't a homogeneous group. Spanos is a relatively poor owner. Meaning that his financial well being is solely the ownership of the team. The owners in that position are looking to make out like Jerry Jones has with his stadium becoming its own money printing machine. Once Spanos saw the Clippers sell for $2 Billion, there wasn't anything the city of San Diego could do to keep him as simply moving 1.5 hours north would increase the value of his franchise by at 100%.

(01-06-2016 08:30 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-06-2016 08:12 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  IMO, the NFL has become obtuse to the reality facing major markets these days. Smaller budgets mean more austere expectations from a host city. For the NFL to extort money from these cities (and their citizens) is myopic and one of the reasons that the NFL needs to pump the brakes on all these demands for new stadiums.

San Diego is a great example. I lived about a mile from the "Murph" for over 5 years and attended MANY games there. The stadium is an old design but was kept immaculate by the city, and has been remodeled a couple of times, most rclecently when they closed the bowl as part of the Qualcomm renaming effort. Its not a dump as some other poster ignorantly called it. Yet the Chargers' ownership has screamed like a petulant child about wanting a new stadium, and not willing to foot any of the bill. Its not San Diego's responsibility to pay for suites to make Charger ownership richer. Charger ownership has been a lousy partner with the city of San Diego. I personally applaud them for standing their ground and if that means losing the team then so be it. The NFL owners' expectations are out of touch with the economic realities of their host cities, and I wish nothing but ill will to the Chargers if they leave SD.

I agree with your sentiment, but NFL owners aren't a homogeneous group. Spanos is a relatively poor owner. Meaning that his financial well being is solely the ownership of the team. The owners in that position are looking to make out like Jerry Jones has with his stadium becoming its own money printing machine. Once Spanos saw the Clippers sell for $2 Billion, there wasn't anything the city of San Diego could do to keep him as simply moving 1.5 hours north would increase the value of his franchise by at 100%.

Exactly. He will move simply because he can. I have been ambivalent about this because Atlanta is in the same boat. Even more so since the Dome is not quite 25 years old. It seems ridiculous to be imploding a GREAT stadium. But money talks and the NFL keeps holding out that Super Bowl carrot along with owners seeing dollar signs from essentially building a complex of suites around a football field. There is no stopping it until the NFL's popularity runs its course.

(01-06-2016 08:08 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I still think you're going to see the Jags eventually relocate to London, and I wouldn't at all be surprised to see another team relocate to the European market to help make that more feasible/viable for the NFL.

Nobody has figured out how to make that work time zone wise. Also the reason nobody ever files to move to Honolulu.

(01-06-2016 08:38 AM)panama Wrote:  

(01-06-2016 08:30 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-06-2016 08:12 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  IMO, the NFL has become obtuse to the reality facing major markets these days. Smaller budgets mean more austere expectations from a host city. For the NFL to extort money from these cities (and their citizens) is myopic and one of the reasons that the NFL needs to pump the brakes on all these demands for new stadiums.

San Diego is a great example. I lived about a mile from the "Murph" for over 5 years and attended MANY games there. The stadium is an old design but was kept immaculate by the city, and has been remodeled a couple of times, most rclecently when they closed the bowl as part of the Qualcomm renaming effort. Its not a dump as some other poster ignorantly called it. Yet the Chargers' ownership has screamed like a petulant child about wanting a new stadium, and not willing to foot any of the bill. Its not San Diego's responsibility to pay for suites to make Charger ownership richer. Charger ownership has been a lousy partner with the city of San Diego. I personally applaud them for standing their ground and if that means losing the team then so be it. The NFL owners' expectations are out of touch with the economic realities of their host cities, and I wish nothing but ill will to the Chargers if they leave SD.

I agree with your sentiment, but NFL owners aren't a homogeneous group. Spanos is a relatively poor owner. Meaning that his financial well being is solely the ownership of the team. The owners in that position are looking to make out like Jerry Jones has with his stadium becoming its own money printing machine. Once Spanos saw the Clippers sell for $2 Billion, there wasn't anything the city of San Diego could do to keep him as simply moving 1.5 hours north would increase the value of his franchise by at 100%.

Exactly. He will move simply because he can. I have been ambivalent about this because Atlanta is in the same boat. Even more so since the Dome is not quite 25 years old. It seems ridiculous to be imploding a GREAT stadium. But money talks and the NFL keeps holding out that Super Bowl carrot along with owners seeing dollar signs from essentially building a complex of suites around a football field. There is no stopping it until the NFL's popularity runs its course.

I'd say Atlanta's situation was a little different as the threat wasn't moving to another city but the Falcons moving to where the Braves are heading. I feel Mayor Reed gave away his negotiating position because as long as the Ga. Dome was around, it would have kept the SEC Championship, the Peach Bowl and CFP Playoff and the odd Final Four and the various other events that Blank wanted to monetize for himself. The Dome had minor issues that were correctable, but a new facility allows Blank out of the current stadium deal and gives a place that will generate revenue for years to come.

(01-06-2016 08:40 AM)panama Wrote:  

(01-06-2016 08:08 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I still think you're going to see the Jags eventually relocate to London, and I wouldn't at all be surprised to see another team relocate to the European market to help make that more feasible/viable for the NFL.

Nobody has figured out how to make that work time zone wise. Also the reason nobody ever files to move to Honolulu.

Concur. I always said without the Concorde there no way an NFL team in London works. I think the Jags will move to St. Louis though. The NFL will have to work out a deal to get the team out of the long term lease at EverBank Field.

I want to tread lightly because my thoughts might stir up some political conversation, however:

In terms of pure capitalism, I believe nfl owners should have a right to move where ever/whenever, assuming contracts with stadiums are fulfilled or appropriately bought out.

With that in mind I feel like the rams should have more votes as as best I can tell the Inglewood stadium is more privately financed? (Excuse my ig orance if I am incorrect)

I dont think another "middle of the night" move is coming but it would be an owners right, especially if a stadium was financed without public money.

In this case, that might mean the rams move and the chargers or raiders become tenants of that stadium.

(01-06-2016 09:13 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-06-2016 08:38 AM)panama Wrote:  

(01-06-2016 08:30 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-06-2016 08:12 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  IMO, the NFL has become obtuse to the reality facing major markets these days. Smaller budgets mean more austere expectations from a host city. For the NFL to extort money from these cities (and their citizens) is myopic and one of the reasons that the NFL needs to pump the brakes on all these demands for new stadiums.

San Diego is a great example. I lived about a mile from the "Murph" for over 5 years and attended MANY games there. The stadium is an old design but was kept immaculate by the city, and has been remodeled a couple of times, most rclecently when they closed the bowl as part of the Qualcomm renaming effort. Its not a dump as some other poster ignorantly called it. Yet the Chargers' ownership has screamed like a petulant child about wanting a new stadium, and not willing to foot any of the bill. Its not San Diego's responsibility to pay for suites to make Charger ownership richer. Charger ownership has been a lousy partner with the city of San Diego. I personally applaud them for standing their ground and if that means losing the team then so be it. The NFL owners' expectations are out of touch with the economic realities of their host cities, and I wish nothing but ill will to the Chargers if they leave SD.

I agree with your sentiment, but NFL owners aren't a homogeneous group. Spanos is a relatively poor owner. Meaning that his financial well being is solely the ownership of the team. The owners in that position are looking to make out like Jerry Jones has with his stadium becoming its own money printing machine. Once Spanos saw the Clippers sell for $2 Billion, there wasn't anything the city of San Diego could do to keep him as simply moving 1.5 hours north would increase the value of his franchise by at 100%.

Exactly. He will move simply because he can. I have been ambivalent about this because Atlanta is in the same boat. Even more so since the Dome is not quite 25 years old. It seems ridiculous to be imploding a GREAT stadium. But money talks and the NFL keeps holding out that Super Bowl carrot along with owners seeing dollar signs from essentially building a complex of suites around a football field. There is no stopping it until the NFL's popularity runs its course.

I'd say Atlanta's situation was a little different as the threat wasn't moving to another city but the Falcons moving to where the Braves are heading. I feel Mayor Reed gave away his negotiating position because as long as the Ga. Dome was around, it would have kept the SEC Championship, the Peach Bowl and CFP Playoff and the odd Final Four and the various other events that Blank wanted to monetize for himself. The Dome had minor issues that were correctable, but a new facility allows Blank out of the current stadium deal and gives a place that will generate revenue for years to come.

The Falcons were never moving to Cobb or anywhere. The city made a calculated decision that got the Falcons a new stadium while also deciding they were fine with the Braves moving to Cobb. For all the events you mentioned and more the Blank deal made sense as the stadium though managed by Blank is owned by the state and is part the GWCC complex. Essentially it's an upgrade for the complex. The baseball stadium is a building only useful for baseball mostly. It was an easy decision.

(01-06-2016 09:34 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  I want to tread lightly because my thoughts might stir up some political conversation, however:

In terms of pure capitalism, I believe nfl owners should have a right to move where ever/whenever, assuming contracts with stadiums are fulfilled or appropriately bought out.

With that in mind I feel like the rams should have more votes as as best I can tell the Inglewood stadium is more privately financed? (Excuse my ig orance if I am incorrect)

I dont think another "middle of the night" move is coming but it would be an owners right, especially if a stadium was financed without public money.

In this case, that might mean the rams move and the chargers or raiders become tenants of that stadium.

Here's a problem, though, as the older stadia are left behind -- the public is still paying for it, and it's already demolished:

Meadowlands debt on vacant or demolished facilities

(01-06-2016 09:40 AM)panama Wrote:  The Falcons were never moving to Cobb or anywhere. The city made a calculated decision that got the Falcons a new stadium while also deciding they were fine with the Braves moving to Cobb. For all the events you mentioned and more the Blank deal made sense as the stadium though managed by Blank is owned by the state and is part the GWCC complex. Essentially it's an upgrade for the complex. The baseball stadium is a building only useful for baseball mostly. It was an easy decision.

I know the Falcons weren't leaving metro Atlanta. But everyone uses the LA stalking horse meme as the reason NFL teams get new facilities when in reality I think that particular leverage was only relevant in only a couple of instances.

I remember Blank talking about building a new outdoor stadium a Ft McPherson, Ft. Gillem and even the old Ford and Chevy Plants were considered possibilities. I didn't take any of them seriously, but he was showing a willingness to move from downtown Atlanta. I understand the rational behind the Blank deal, but the Braves weren't asking for even that much in comparison. And with 81 events over the summer, I think the impact of both facilities was about equal.

(01-06-2016 09:53 AM)rjglassett Wrote:  

(01-06-2016 09:34 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  I want to tread lightly because my thoughts might stir up some political conversation, however:

In terms of pure capitalism, I believe nfl owners should have a right to move where ever/whenever, assuming contracts with stadiums are fulfilled or appropriately bought out.

With that in mind I feel like the rams should have more votes as as best I can tell the Inglewood stadium is more privately financed? (Excuse my ig orance if I am incorrect)

I dont think another "middle of the night" move is coming but it would be an owners right, especially if a stadium was financed without public money.

In this case, that might mean the rams move and the chargers or raiders become tenants of that stadium.

Here's a problem, though, as the older stadia are left behind -- the public is still paying for it, and it's already demolished:

Meadowlands debt on vacant or demolished facilities

I think that is an outlier. Most of these older stadiums are paid for or close to it.