Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Cities not picked for expansion
Author Message
Erictelevision Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 820
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 10
I Root For: Uconn hoops
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
Cards moved in '88, Rams in '94
12-29-2016 12:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
lew240z Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 660
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 20
I Root For: Wyoming
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Post: #22
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
(12-28-2016 06:21 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  
(12-28-2016 10:05 AM)bostonspider Wrote:  For the 1974 NFL Expansion
The five finalists for an expansion teams were Memphis, Honolulu, Phoenix, Seattle, and Tampa Bay

For the 1995 NFL Expansion
The five cities that were finalists were Jacksonville (Jaguars), Charlotte (Panthers), Memphis (the Hound Dogs), Baltimore (the Bombers) and St. Louis (the Stallions)

For the 2002 NFL Expansion
Less than seven months after conditionally awarding its 32nd franchise to Los
Angeles, NFL owners pulled a reverse and selected Houston as the next
expansion city


When did the LA Rams move to St. Louis? I am wondering if that franchise moving impacted St. Louis for an expansion team.... but then again ... I don't recall the year the Cardinals moved out of St. Louis to head to Phoenix.

The Jaguars were supposed to be the Saint Louis Stallions. There were two competing ownership groups. The NFL was ready to award the franchise to a group led by James Orthwein, an Anheuser Busch heir. However, the competing group led by Jerry Clinton, a major Anheuser Busch distributor, held the lease to the TWA dome. When they could not resolve their differences, the NFL awarded the franchise to Jacksonville. The Stallions colors were to be purple and gold. A lot of merchandise was produced and a few items were sold. When the team went to Jacksonville, the merchandise was dumped in Africa. I saw Stallions hats and T-shirts being worn in Kinshasa, Zaire.

In 1992, Jerry Orthwein acquired the New England Patriots from Victor Kiam to resolve a debt between the two men. Orthwein intended to move the team it Saint Louis as the Stallions. The proposed colors were blue and silver. Robert Kraft, owner of the Gillette stadium, refused to let Orthwein out of the lease, and then purchased the team in a hostile takeover. One thing Orthwein did that was positive for the Patriots was hiring Bill Parcells.

The current owner of the Jaguars tried to buy the Rams from Georgia Frontierre, but Stan Kronke had the right of first refusal. If Kahn had bought the Rams, they would still be in Saint Louis.

The reason the Rams moved to Saint Louis is because they couldn't draw flies in Anaheim, and Georgia's hometown had a shiny new football stadium instead of the crappy baseball stadium in Anahiem.
(This post was last modified: 12-29-2016 01:27 PM by lew240z.)
12-29-2016 01:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,623
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 113
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
(12-25-2016 12:39 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  He was trying to railroad them, proposing an arena in an awful location and then putting in unrealistic terms so he could justify moving if they refused. They had just renovated Key Arena a little over a decade earlier. Worst yet, the NBA commissioner was bullheaded and behind it 110%, so he could get a team in OKC.

That team should have been the Hornets (now Pelicans), as New Orleans was struggling to support that team and in reality is not a pro sports market. That's right, it's not a pro sports market, the Saints have been there almost 50 years but the NFL has the added benefit of being a weekend sport, so people throughout Louisiana and Mississippi can support them as well. Those states are among the very poorest states in the entire country and New Orleans has among the lowest median income levels of all pro sports places. We saw just how impoverished and how big the city's underclass was after Katrina hit.

It's a damn shame what these leagues and owners do to leverage teams into doing their bidding.


The tax payer in the state will vote against any tax increase for any pro sports team. The people in that state wants the owners to pay their own way to add the sport. NASCAR wanted to build a track in the state, but the voters said no. It is already too expensive to live in the state.
12-29-2016 02:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
The Sonics will be back ... when Seattle pulls its head out of its keister and builds a new arena down by the football stadium. Should build a MLS stadium down there too ... but I think the team actually gets attendance high enough to warrant the football stadium?? Can't recall off the top of my head.

That's such a great setup they have with the football and baseball stadium down there. Seattle is fine town, and I hope to visit again in the next few years.
12-30-2016 10:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bluesox Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,586
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 56
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
I just don't see Jacksonville being a long term NFL city. With St. Louis open and San Diego looking like it could be open those are much better markets. Of course, London could be where the owner wants to move. I wonder if a split could ever work with Jacksonville and London. Say play 4 games in London and 4 in Jacksonville but that
probably doesn't fly.
(This post was last modified: 12-30-2016 11:24 AM by bluesox.)
12-30-2016 11:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
(12-30-2016 11:24 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I just don't see Jacksonville being a long term NFL city. With St. Louis open and San Diego looking like it could be open those are much better markets. Of course, London could be where the owner wants to move. I wonder if a split could ever work with Jacksonville and London. Say play 4 games in London and 4 in Jacksonville but that
probably doesn't fly.

As I've said a few times before, I can't see how it wouldn't make sense for the Jags to move to St Louis if the city will build the brand new, riverfront stadium it had proposed for the Rams. Along with a new practice facility (not saying the city needs to build that), it seems perfect to me with Indy and Nashville being direct interstate highway spokes from STL.
12-30-2016 11:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
lew240z Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 660
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 20
I Root For: Wyoming
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Post: #27
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
There will be no new NFL stadium in Saint Louis, unless it is entirely financed privately. The current Democratic idiot governor is a lame duck.
the governor-elect is absolutely opposed to corporate welfare. The lame duck tried to ram through a $40 million dollar tax break for the proposed new soccer stadium by using a committee that can issue tax breaks without the approval of the Missouri legislature. The governor-elect immediately issued a statement opposing the tax break and the ownership group backed off. The $80 million dollar city subsidy for the soccer stadium will be on the April municipal election ballot. All of the mayoral candidates are opposed to any public financing for the soccer stadium. The state legislature is also on record as being against any funding to any stadium, including Farout Field at Mizzou.

The existing dome is the only major stadium with the playing field at street level. This was done to allow the stadium to be used as part of the convention center. In fact, the legal name of the dome is something like America's Center Exhibition Hall 6. Short term plans to the dome are to renovate it to make it more useful for conventions. Plans include removal of the seats and the construction of a second level. Long term plans for the dome call for its demolition and replacement by actual convention facilities.

The convention center lost $50,000 every time the Rams played there. That does not include any losses from not being able to schedule conventions, etc. during the NFL season. On the other hand, the upcoming Beyonce concert is estimated to bring the convention center a $1,000,000 profit.

There will be no new stadium in Saint Louis. That might be the only thing the local Democrats and the state Republicans agree on. Among the general population, there is, of course, some support for getting another NFL team, but most of those people want an expansion team and don't want to steal a team from another city. However, most of the population either don't give a damn or are hostile to the idea of another NFL team in Saint Louis. After the trashing the city got from Goodell, Kroenke and Jerry Jones, the general attitude is the NFL can go to hell. I would say at this time there is more support for getting an NBA team, and there really isn't much interest in that, either.
12-31-2016 10:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
Fair enough. STL seems content to be a second-rate city to KC, I guess.

Stadiums aren't "corporate welfare". What an absurd thing to say. Are parks and trails "corporate welfare"?? Of course not. They're public amenities. Just like a public stadium is.

That's the viewpoint Mpls holds, anyway.
12-31-2016 11:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
lew240z Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 660
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 20
I Root For: Wyoming
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Post: #29
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
A stadium or any facility built to benefit a single, or even a few private entities is corporate welfare. Parks, trails etc. benefit any member of the public who cares to use them. An NFL stadium is the ultimate in corporate welfare. As for KC, their stadiums were built in the 60's. When the Chiefs and the Royals started talking about how they needed new facilities, KC offered to participate in renovation of those stadiums. The teams agreed.

When the Rams demanded a new stadium, they were offered a renovation of the dome. Kroenke declined the offer and demanded what was essentially a tear down of the dome and the building of a new domed stadium. The cost of Kroenke's proposal was more than a new stadium. It also would have required the closure of the main south bound thoroughfare into downtown Saint Louis. The cost was way beyond what could be done and closing the street was simply impossible. Kroenke was going to reject any proposal made to keep the Rams. He was going to move to Los Angeles and nothing would have stopped him.

The new Busch stadium was built with private money (90%), but there is a @45,000,000 long term loan from Saint Louis County which may be paid off early. BTW, Saint Louis City is not in Saint Louis County. The only thing the city did was a reduction in their admissions tax. The state made a small contribution in moving some infrastructure because it is a state highway. Kroenke could have done the same thing, since he his spending over $2 billion of his own money to build his stadium in Los Angeles.

With the way that Kroenke, Goodell and Jones trashed the area when announcing the move, no NFL owner would ever consider moving to Saint Louis. Those clowns did such a thorough job they can't use Saint Louis as leverage against any other cities.

Any effort to build a new stadium to attract a team would be as stupid as building the dome was, or building the Alamo Dome to attract an NFL team. How long did St. Pete's baseball stadium sit empty while teams went to other cities? And it was obsolescent before the Rays arrived. And speaking of Kansas City, 20 years after the King left Kemper Arena, the city built a second arena to attract the NHL and NBA. We've seen how well that worked. KC has two first class arenas NHL and NBA teams use as leverage to get new facilities in their current cities. Meanwhile, KC's arenas are hosting wrestling and horse shows. I hope the taxpayers are happy.
12-31-2016 12:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
You conveniently left out the part where STL was going to build the Rams a new billion dollar, riverfront stadium.
[Image: 54f497e4ab6d7.image.jpg]

I get you're anti-stadium, fine.

But a *public* stadium is the same thing as a public park or public trail: the public own it, it is not a necessity but it is an amenity that people desire to have and are willing to pay for via taxes. Exactly the same thing.
12-31-2016 01:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 18,964
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 364
I Root For: Houston
Location: Near Seawall Town
Post: #31
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
^

As long as visitors get fleeced and not local taxpayers, I'm fine with publicly owned stadiums. And of course "fleeced" is a relative term, paying $5 extra dollars on a car rental or hotel bill shouldn't piss anyone off except the extremely cheap.
12-31-2016 02:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
lew240z Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 660
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 20
I Root For: Wyoming
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Post: #32
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
(12-31-2016 01:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  You conveniently left out the part where STL was going to build the Rams a new billion dollar, riverfront stadium.
[Image: 54f497e4ab6d7.image.jpg]

I get you're anti-stadium, fine.

But a *public* stadium is the same thing as a public park or public trail: the public own it, it is not a necessity but it is an amenity that people desire to have and are willing to pay for via taxes. Exactly the same thing.

No, I didn't forget about it. It was never going to happen. Kroenke didn't want it. Goodell didn't want it. The NFL owners didn't want it. They all wanted the Rams in Los Angeles. The value of the Rams doubled with the move. The Rams went from 28th to sixth in valuation. If 100% of the population of the state of Missouri had supported the new stadium, it still would have never been built. The Rams were gone before negotiations even began. If you look up the definition of bad faith negotiation, you will find the NFL logo.
01-01-2017 09:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
PirateTreasureNC Offline
G's up, Ho's Down ; )
*

Posts: 32,803
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 484
I Root For: ECU Pirates,
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
(01-01-2017 09:39 AM)lew240z Wrote:  
(12-31-2016 01:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  You conveniently left out the part where STL was going to build the Rams a new billion dollar, riverfront stadium.
[Image: 54f497e4ab6d7.image.jpg]

I get you're anti-stadium, fine.

But a *public* stadium is the same thing as a public park or public trail: the public own it, it is not a necessity but it is an amenity that people desire to have and are willing to pay for via taxes. Exactly the same thing.

No, I didn't forget about it. It was never going to happen. Kroenke didn't want it. Goodell didn't want it. The NFL owners didn't want it. They all wanted the Rams in Los Angeles. The value of the Rams doubled with the move. The Rams went from 28th to sixth in valuation. If 100% of the population of the state of Missouri had supported the new stadium, it still would have never been built. The Rams were gone before negotiations even began. If you look up the definition of bad faith negotiation, you will find the NFL logo.

The only point I'd argue about LA is... if LA meant that much to the NFL why did it allow the Rams to leave in the first place? Why was there no team put there for close to 20 years?

I think the only thing got LA hot on the NFL's mind was the sale of the Clippers for an INSANE PRICE. And that insane price paid for the Dodgers.
01-01-2017 12:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
lew240z Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 660
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 20
I Root For: Wyoming
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Post: #34
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
Yes, it was the Clippers and Dodgers valuations that got the NFL off the mark.
01-01-2017 01:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 13,243
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 410
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #35
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
And, if the NFL was going to return to LA, it was going to have to be in a privately-funded stadium, which meant that the LA owner had to be Kroenke. No one else who was ever interested in having a team in LA had the money to make it happen.

The Raiders and Chargers owners are only billionaires on paper; apart from the value of their NFL franchises, their net worth isn't even enough to build a high school football field with aluminum bleachers. 07-coffee3
01-01-2017 04:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,640
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 160
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #36
Cities not picked for expansion
(01-01-2017 04:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  And, if the NFL was going to return to LA, it was going to have to be in a privately-funded stadium, which meant that the LA owner had to be Kroenke. No one else who was ever interested in having a team in LA had the money to make it happen.

The Raiders and Chargers owners are only billionaires on paper; apart from the value of their NFL franchises, their net worth isn't even enough to build a high school football field with aluminum bleachers. 07-coffee3

I think Davis and Spanos were hoping the NFL would help with a new stadium in LA. I thought Carson was going to give those to that superfund site? It was still a pipe dream, but having buildible land is 1/3 of the battle in California.
01-01-2017 07:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 18,964
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 364
I Root For: Houston
Location: Near Seawall Town
Post: #37
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
(01-01-2017 12:42 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  The only point I'd argue about LA is... if LA meant that much to the NFL why did it allow the Rams to leave in the first place? Why was there no team put there for close to 20 years?

I think the only thing got LA hot on the NFL's mind was the sale of the Clippers for an INSANE PRICE. And that insane price paid for the Dodgers.

The NFL is good at leveraging taxpayers to foot the bill for its palaces. LA was of the mindset of "kiss our ass," you need us more than we need you. And they were right, the NFL finally came back but only after a privately financed stadium was planned. They are firm in California about not building publicly financed stadiums and the newest stadiums in California were/are going to be privately financed (the Giants Park, most of Levi's, the Rams new stadium).

The Rams didn't leave so much because LA didn't support them as much as Georgia Frontiere got a sweetheart deal in St. Louis and left a crumbling stadium in Anaheim after a time of being the second team in the LA market after the Raiders. The Raiders also left because of the state of the Coliseum, so it was an amazing coincidence. But LA had two teams, they certainly had the market to support the NFL then and now.
01-01-2017 08:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
PirateTreasureNC Offline
G's up, Ho's Down ; )
*

Posts: 32,803
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 484
I Root For: ECU Pirates,
Location:
Post: #38
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
(01-01-2017 08:06 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(01-01-2017 12:42 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  The only point I'd argue about LA is... if LA meant that much to the NFL why did it allow the Rams to leave in the first place? Why was there no team put there for close to 20 years?

I think the only thing got LA hot on the NFL's mind was the sale of the Clippers for an INSANE PRICE. And that insane price paid for the Dodgers.

The NFL is good at leveraging taxpayers to foot the bill for its palaces. LA was of the mindset of "kiss our ass," you need us more than we need you. And they were right, the NFL finally came back but only after a privately financed stadium was planned. They are firm in California about not building publicly financed stadiums and the newest stadiums in California were/are going to be privately financed (the Giants Park, most of Levi's, the Rams new stadium).

The Rams didn't leave so much because LA didn't support them as much as Georgia Frontiere got a sweetheart deal in St. Louis and left a crumbling stadium in Anaheim after a time of being the second team in the LA market after the Raiders. The Raiders also left because of the state of the Coliseum, so it was an amazing coincidence. But LA had two teams, they certainly had the market to support the NFL then and now.

If they had the market (and I don't doubt they do/did) how did....

Houston Oilers not move to LA (Tennessee Titans )
Cleveland Browns not move to LA ( went to Baltimore)
Houston and Cleveland being awarded expansion teams
*Trying to think if there was any other team I am forgetting from that time period... because I think the Jags and Panthers came into the NFL a few years prior to their exit out of LA.
01-01-2017 10:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 18,964
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 364
I Root For: Houston
Location: Near Seawall Town
Post: #39
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
The Oilers had been threatening to move to Jacksonville and Tennessee for years as leverage to get renovations at the Astrodome or a new stadium built. The owner got his wish and the heart and soul of the Astrodome was ripped out for more seats. He still complained, forcing the city's hand and making him make good on his bluff to move to Tennessee.

The Panthers/Jags came in after the LA market was vacated but not before they had already been awarded to Charlotte and Jacksonville respectively. In other words, LA had no shot at them because they had already been awarded before the Rams and Raiders moved.

Finally, the Texans were supposed to be LA's expansion franchise but despite the league's best efforts, LA refused to publicly fund a stadium and every negotiation fell through, thus Houston was awarded instead.
01-02-2017 02:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #40
RE: Cities not picked for expansion
(01-01-2017 09:39 AM)lew240z Wrote:  They all wanted the Rams in Los Angeles.

So??? Why the defeatist attitude of "if it can't be the Rams, then screw you!" Why so hell-bent on the Rams?? They were only in STL for what 20 years? Not 100 years.

You could build the same stadium for the Jags, and have automatic regional rivalries with Indy and Nashville baked into the circumstance of the NFL's league structure.
(This post was last modified: 01-02-2017 02:51 PM by MplsBison.)
01-02-2017 02:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.