Owner of the Jags is from St Louis

Sent from my KFTHWI using Tapatalk

(09-03-2015 09:09 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  Owner of the Jags is from St Louis

Sent from my KFTHWI using Tapatalk

The Jacksonville Raiders

(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.

Stadium economics. For a stadium that isn't heavily subsidized with public money like in nearly every NFL stadium, you almost NEED two to make it work.

(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).

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.

From a support standpoint Germany is probably more ripe than London but with the language issue it would be hard to get free agents and no German city has the population density and none has super abundance of corporate money of London.

(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.

hehe, what about......

The London Raiders!

(09-03-2015 06:32 PM)Wedge 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.

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).

I've never heard this before. If true, how did Spanos manage to put together such a voting block? Because I really didn't think he had much leverage within the league especially since he can't resolve his own stadium issue in SD. I thought nearly all of the owners (save Davis and Spanos) would be very receptive to Kronke's move to LA.

Toronto would be a huge challenge. Skydome is too small so a new stadium is needed. Bills had trouble selling tickets since they had to price them so high to make up for the lack of seats. You will never get the Canadian government to cough up money for a new stadium. The CFL invokes a ton of national pride and is very popular right now. The league and the fans know that without a Toronto team, the league would be in deep trouble. So, the pressure not to finance a new Toronto stadium would be enormous. So, unless the stadium is privately financed, which would be extremely difficult, I can't see an NFL team moving to Toronto.

I also heard the Chargers have investors lined up for a new LA stadium to make up their contribution to the public financing. The Rams stadium will be privately financed. So, that leaves the Raiders looking in from the outside. I think the owners will easily accept movement of the Chargers given their long term and ongoing stadium issues. Not sure about the Rams. Their stadium isn't horrible and they draw well.

Why does the NFL believe that LA is really clammoring for 2 franchises. When NFL teams were in LA they were well supported because so many of the residents are transplants from elsewhere (many from Canada & Mexico who mostly could care less about the NFL) USC & UCLA have long and storied histories in the city of Angels and are among the best supported teams in college football.

Chargers have been performed well on the field, St Louis not so much. I doubt 2 NFL franchises will make it in LA.

(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.

Except that college baseball and college hoops (except for UCLA before the Freshman 1 and dones) were never that well supported in LA. COllege football on the other hand is, USC & UCLA are among the highest attended games in college football. Both programs are rarely dumpster fires and the NFL will have a hard time drawing fans away from those 2 programs

As I recall, I don't think LA ever had a support problem. It was a stadium problem, and even now, they will not publicly finance stadiums, like every other city in the country will. That and when the teams left, the NFL profited big time off the mere threat of moving back to LA. But now that everyone has a stadium, it's time to go back.

The one thing I do wonder though, is will the fact that most of the last major stadiums built, LA, NJ, and SC (not MN or GA however) were built with largely private money, and much less public money. Miami's renovation is much more private money than past ones have been. Will future NFL cities use this to force NFL teams to pay for their own buildings? Note I think they should pay for their own since by and large NFL stadiums that are not domes bring in little revenue aside from NFL games, but right now they are not having to. I wonder how this will affect their future.

(09-04-2015 08:29 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:32 PM)Wedge 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.

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).

I've never heard this before. If true, how did Spanos manage to put together such a voting block? Because I really didn't think he had much leverage within the league especially since he can't resolve his own stadium issue in SD. I thought nearly all of the owners (save Davis and Spanos) would be very receptive to Kronke's move to LA.

Apparently Spanos convinced a few owners with his sales pitch, which is: He's spent more than 10 years trying to get someone to build him a free stadium in San Diego, and claims that a third of his season ticket holders come from LA and OC, and a team in LA would take that away from the Chargers if the Chargers had to stay in SD.

Quote:Sam Farmer ‏
@LATimesfarmer
Aug 17

Dean likely has nine votes to block Stan. Stan likely has nine votes to block Dean. The NFL will manage the outcome, not put LA to a vote.

(09-04-2015 10:21 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  As I recall, I don't think LA ever had a support problem. It was a stadium problem, and even now, they will not publicly finance stadiums, like every other city in the country will. That and when the teams left, the NFL profited big time off the mere threat of moving back to LA. But now that everyone has a stadium, it's time to go back.

The one thing I do wonder though, is will the fact that most of the last major stadiums built, LA, NJ, and SC (not MN or GA however) were built with largely private money, and much less public money. Miami's renovation is much more private money than past ones have been. Will future NFL cities use this to force NFL teams to pay for their own buildings? Note I think they should pay for their own since by and large NFL stadiums that are not domes bring in little revenue aside from NFL games, but right now they are not having to. I wonder how this will affect their future.

This

(09-04-2015 10:21 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  As I recall, I don't think LA ever had a support problem. It was a stadium problem, and even now, they will not publicly finance stadiums, like every other city in the country will. That and when the teams left, the NFL profited big time off the mere threat of moving back to LA. But now that everyone has a stadium, it's time to go back.

The one thing I do wonder though, is will the fact that most of the last major stadiums built, LA, NJ, and SC (not MN or GA however) were built with largely private money, and much less public money. Miami's renovation is much more private money than past ones have been. Will future NFL cities use this to force NFL teams to pay for their own buildings? Note I think they should pay for their own since by and large NFL stadiums that are not domes bring in little revenue aside from NFL games, but right now they are not having to. I wonder how this will affect their future.

The new ATL stadium in theory is mostly financed thru private funds. We'll see what the final split is once it's complete.

(09-04-2015 10:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 08:29 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:32 PM)Wedge 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.

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).

I've never heard this before. If true, how did Spanos manage to put together such a voting block? Because I really didn't think he had much leverage within the league especially since he can't resolve his own stadium issue in SD. I thought nearly all of the owners (save Davis and Spanos) would be very receptive to Kronke's move to LA.

Apparently Spanos convinced a few owners with his sales pitch, which is: He's spent more than 10 years trying to get someone to build him a free stadium in San Diego, and claims that a third of his season ticket holders come from LA and OC, and a team in LA would take that away from the Chargers if the Chargers had to stay in SD.

Quote:Sam Farmer ‏
@LATimesfarmer
Aug 17

Dean likely has nine votes to block Stan. Stan likely has nine votes to block Dean. The NFL will manage the outcome, not put LA to a vote.

Thx for the info. I've found it interesting that the Padres could get a new place but not the Chargers. Somehow the NFL is OK with rebuilds of Arrowhead and Joe Robbie Stadiums but doing the same for Jack Murphy Stadium is somehow untenable.

(09-04-2015 11:39 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 10:21 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  As I recall, I don't think LA ever had a support problem. It was a stadium problem, and even now, they will not publicly finance stadiums, like every other city in the country will. That and when the teams left, the NFL profited big time off the mere threat of moving back to LA. But now that everyone has a stadium, it's time to go back.

The one thing I do wonder though, is will the fact that most of the last major stadiums built, LA, NJ, and SC (not MN or GA however) were built with largely private money, and much less public money. Miami's renovation is much more private money than past ones have been. Will future NFL cities use this to force NFL teams to pay for their own buildings? Note I think they should pay for their own since by and large NFL stadiums that are not domes bring in little revenue aside from NFL games, but right now they are not having to. I wonder how this will affect their future.

The new ATL stadium in theory is mostly financed thru private funds. We'll see what the final split is once it's complete.

The plan is $700 million NFL/Falcons, $300 Atlanta.

(09-04-2015 11:47 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 10:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 08:29 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:32 PM)Wedge 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.

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).

I've never heard this before. If true, how did Spanos manage to put together such a voting block? Because I really didn't think he had much leverage within the league especially since he can't resolve his own stadium issue in SD. I thought nearly all of the owners (save Davis and Spanos) would be very receptive to Kronke's move to LA.

Apparently Spanos convinced a few owners with his sales pitch, which is: He's spent more than 10 years trying to get someone to build him a free stadium in San Diego, and claims that a third of his season ticket holders come from LA and OC, and a team in LA would take that away from the Chargers if the Chargers had to stay in SD.

Quote:Sam Farmer ‏
@LATimesfarmer
Aug 17

Dean likely has nine votes to block Stan. Stan likely has nine votes to block Dean. The NFL will manage the outcome, not put LA to a vote.

Thx for the info. I've found it interesting that the Padres could get a new place but not the Chargers. Somehow the NFL is OK with rebuilds of Arrowhead and Joe Robbie Stadiums but doing the same for Jack Murphy Stadium is somehow untenable.

From what I've read, the Padres then-owner was much better at local politics. His real estate company still owns land near the ballpark (even though he sold the team 10 years ago to pay for his divorce). The Chargers apparently were consistent in not wanting a rebuild or a new stadium at the Qualcomm (Jack Murphy) site, and hopscotched around to various places in San Diego County trying to get a deal (of course one that would have cost the Chargers almost nothing).

But, IMO the Chargers stopped being serious about SD and started quietly focusing on LA when they learned that Kroenke bought that parcel of land in Inglewood. (That became public in January 2014, but Kroenke informed the NFL before that.) The ginormous sale price for the Clippers just sealed it, because it showed that even a second-banana team that LA fans seemingly don't care about can be worth more than three-fourths of the teams in the NBA.

Agreed that chargers aren't staying in San Diego with 2 new teams coming to LA + to get the stadium in LA will take 2 teams so San Diego seems like its gonna lose an NFL team. Unless the rams trade ownership teams, can't see them staying in St louis since the owner is building the LA stadium and will want a team in it. So pencil in Rams/Chargers to LA. Raiders are homeless. Move in with the 49ers or find the best offer which is probably gonna be st louis. I don't think San Diego or San A is an option. Maybe Vegas, Toronto, London etc could work in a few years if they camp out short term in the 49ers pad.

(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?

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.

(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?

New York and Los Angeles have lost more teams over the years, and they still get teams. It's about the money.